I think that the protocols themselves are probably considered proprietary
unless they have been released by transarc. Any specs would have to have
their blessing at least, I would think.
-- Garrett.
On Fri, 16 Aug 1996 10:47:12 -0400 Mitch Collinsworth wrote:
>
> ... an interesting discussion.
>
> >The truly hard part is not really a technical issue at all. Those of
> >us who know enough to do a free client wouldn't be able to, because most
> >of us have AFS source access, which would make it hard to claim that
> >the new client had been written without reading and/or using Transarc's
> >code...
>
> right. However what if someone knowledgeable were to simply document
> the protocols and interfaces and then someone at another site were to
> write new code from that document? Would the result still be
> considered tainted?
>
> -Mitch
>
- Re: Two new Linux-AFS releases... 2.0.11-2 and 2.0.12 Brian W. Spolarich
- Re: Two new Linux-AFS releases... 2.0.11-2 and 2.... schemers
- Re: Two new Linux-AFS releases... 2.0.11-2 an... Derrick J. Brashear
- mowing Lyle_Seaman
- Re: Two new Linux-AFS releases... 2.0.11-2 and 2.0.12 Derrick J. Brashear
- Re: Two new Linux-AFS releases... 2.0.11-2 and 2.0.12 Derrick J. Brashear
- Re: Two new Linux-AFS releases... 2.0.11-2 and 2.0.12 peter honeyman
- Re: Two new Linux-AFS releases... 2.0.11-2 and 2.... Jeffrey Hutzelman
- building a free AFS client Mitch Collinsworth
- Re: building a free AFS client Garrett D'Amore
- Re: building a free AFS client Jeffrey Hutzelman
- Re: building a free AFS client Derrick J. Brashear
- Re: Two new Linux-AFS releases... 2.0.11-2 and 2.0.12 Jared Mauch
- Re: Two new Linux-AFS releases... 2.0.11-2 and 2.... Marcus Watts
