During the wrangling over how Microsoft complies with the ruling, the Commission agreed to withhold access to the protocols
that its says must be licensed to rivals from open source and free software programmers.
“It’s not certain Samba will benefit, but the IT industry as a whole will," Tridgell said in the interview. "That’s why this
case is seminal for the IT industry. The interoperability the Commission is demanding from Microsoft will allow the industry
to return to the sort of cooperation that existed in the 1990s,” he said. “Cooperation is the norm."
Windows 2000 for servers, and all subsequent versions, contain Microsoft's Active Directory which, according to Microsoft,
cannot function fully with rival servers without granting those rivals the ability to clone Microsoft’s own server system.
But the interoperability information the Commission, and the likes of Tridgell, see as essential for fair competition lies
within Active Directory.
During its presentations to the court, Microsoft characterized Active Directory in slides presented to the court as a blue
bubble containing a cluster of computer towers. The slides attempted to show how Active Directory works in conjunction with
other types of servers, such as Web servers, and with client PCs, and how it wouldn’t function if any non-Microsoft server
systems were added to Microsoft’s Active Directory.
Microsoft claimed that the same interoperability problem would arise if you tried to combine any non-Microsoft work group
servers, such as ones made by Sun Microsystems Inc. and Novell Inc., together.
But Tridgell disagreed, pointing out that Samba and Unix systems can work together without a problem. He also said Microsoft’s
argument distracted from the more important issue, which is that Windows on the PC is becoming less and less tolerant of rivals’
server systems with each new version since the launch of Windows 2000.
“Windows on the client PC is becoming decreasingly interoperable and less tolerant of rivals' server systems,” he said.