Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux.development:22658 comp.os.386bsd.development:3044 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.386bsd.development Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!news.uoknor.edu!ns1.nodak.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!oracle.pnl.gov!osi-east2.es.net!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sun4nl!rnzll3!sys3.pe1chl!rob From: rob@pe1chl.ampr.org (Rob Janssen) Subject: Re: SAMBA and NETWARE mounting Reply-To: pe1chl@wab-tis.rabobank.nl Organization: PE1CHL Message-ID: <D2LH48.3IF@pe1chl.ampr.org> References: <3eo2j1$l5o@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> <D267uw.Grq@park.uvsc.edu> <D2JnoD.1DD@pe1chl.ampr.org> <D2KG6E.CMp@park.uvsc.edu> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 09:31:19 GMT Lines: 43 In <D2KG6E.CMp@park.uvsc.edu> Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu> writes: >rob@pe1chl.ampr.org (Rob Janssen) wrote: >] >Well, as far as I know, most of the "sniffer" type network protocol >] >analyzers have licensed the packet decodes from Novell, and in >] >getting the thing installed, you've agreed to their license terms, >] >which include the sublicense terms from Novell. And these explicitly >] >disallow using the information provided for reverse engineering >] >things. >] >] But those license terms are null and void in most of Europe... >But not in the US. >So you will be able to distribute your code in Europe and not the >US, until GATT is signed, when you will need to destroy the code. Note that I am not planning to write Novell-compatible code. Frankly I would not care if code I wrote was not distributable in the US because of some regulation pertinent to the US. That is a problem of the US citizens, and just as the rest of the world had to write their own DES code because US citizens were not allowed to export it, you will have to write some code yourself because you cannot import it. fair. Or, alternatively, after agreements have been signed you will be able to do the same thing in the US. I don't think this freedom to make your system working will be so easily given up... >Seems like an exercise in futility for a protocol which is so >poorly routable. Please explain. How is IPX worse in routability than IP? Because of those nice 32-bit network numbers, so that you don't have to use cramped subnetting schemes? Are you referring to the timing problems in NCP? Do you think these are a design issue? (I think they are an implementation issue) Rob -- +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Rob Janssen rob@knoware.nl | AMPRnet: rob@pe1chl.ampr.org | | e-mail: pe1chl@wab-tis.rabobank.nl | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8UTR.#UTR.NLD.EU | +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+