[Kaul <mykaul@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Ed Beroset <beroset@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

-----Original Message-----
>From: Eloy Paris <peloy@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Sep 7, 2010 3:11 PM
>To: wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Usage of MS protocol documentation in Wireshark
>
>On 09/07/2010 02:20 PM, Stephen Fisher wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>Microsoft folks would probably find it useful to troubleshoot
>> their software anyway ;)
>
>Don't know if things have changed recently but a couple of years ago a
>co-worker went to teach a networking class at the Microsoft Redmond
>campus and he was not allowed to use open source tools (including
>Wireshark) during the training. Back then the use of open source tools
>was frowned upon. I understand they are more open with regards to open
>source these days so things may have changed a little ;-)

There is some evidence that suggests they were never as allergic to open source as some of their executives would like you to believe.  If you look at files shipped with the Windows operating system, including ftp.exe, finger.exe, nslookup.exe and others, you'll see that outwardly they have a Microsoft copyright, but in the text inside them, one finds text indicating "Copyright 198x The Regents of the University of California."

Ed

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
            mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe

Back to the original discussion - the license for the protocol documentation is outlined in the link I've previously mentioned - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc207842.aspx

As for Network monitor - the parsers are under a BSD license actually - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc207842.aspx
Y.