Jeremy Allison Talks Samba and GPLv3

dmarti writes "The software that enables Linux to act as a Windows file and print server is adopting the Free Software Foundation's new license. What will be the impact on users, distributors, and appliance vendors? Samba maintainer Jeremy Allison answers, in a podcast interview."

Didn't we just discuss this?

[GizmoToy]

Maybe it's just me, but didn't we have this conversation 3 days ago?

Samba Adopts GPLv3 For Future Releases [slashdot.org]

Re:Linus is right

[wrook]

Linus should have stuck to his non-commercial-use-only license. He only adopted the GPL because of pressure from others and has never believed in it. I don't advocate people doing things they don't believe in.

From an interview with Linus Torvalds himself - http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html [www.tlug.jp] :

I'm generally a very pragmatic person: that which works, works. When it comes to software, I _much_ prefer free software, because I have very seldom seen a program that has worked well enough for my needs, and having sources available can be a life-saver.

So in that sense I am an avid promoter of free software, and GPL'd stuff in particular (because once it's GPL'd I _know_ it's going to stay free, so I don't have to worry about future releases).

Further more:

I changed the copyright to the GPL within roughly half a year: it quickly became evident that my original copyright was so restrictive that it prohibited some entirely valid uses (disk copying services etc - this was before CD-ROM's became really popular). And while I was nervous about the GPL at first, I also wanted to show my appreciation to the gcc C compiler that Linux depended on, which was obviously GPL'd.

Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did.

So... I'd say you are completely and utterly wrong.

Re:Worng person to ask about licences

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

Wrong person full stop. :-)

You're confusing me with tridge. I don't know why people do that. He's the clever one, I'm just better at P.R. :-)

Jeremy.

Re:Worng person to ask about licences

[Knuckles]

1. You confuse Jeremy Allison with Andrew Tridgell
2. Tridgell "reverse-engineered" bitkeeper by logging into the bitkeeper server with telnet and typing "help" [slashdot.org]. How was this forbidden by the license?

Re:Linus is right

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

Somehow I don't think you're the real Miguel :-).

Nice impersonation though, although a bit too obvious :-) :-).

Jeremy.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[flyingfsck]

I actually read the GPL - all versions. The spirit of the GPL hasn't changed. It has always said: If you are a team player, then donate your code modifications back for the greater good and ensure that your users have all the rights that you have. If you are not a team player, then go away, do your own thing and leave us alone.

Unfortunately, as the GPL code corpus grew, various commercial leaches sensed an opportunity to profit off other people's charity. For example Tivo and lately Microsoft. The GPL V3 changed the wording to make it abundantly clear that leaches will not be tolerated and that all users have equal rights. Some users cannot be more equal than others. If you don't want to play, then go away. We don't need you, you need us.

Nothing changed. That has always been the intent of the GPL:
"Copyleft, most rights reversed."

Re:Worng person to ask about licences

[dbIII]

It was Andrew Tridgell so I should not post half asleep - couldn't even spell wrong correctly.

However the paticular licence for bitkeeper forbid reverse-engineering which is one of the reasons why people did not like it. Andrew Tridgell's employer had licenced the software and was supposed to keep to the conditions of that licence no matter how stupid they may appear, even if it meant stopping him logging in to work out how it behaved. It comes back to either not using the software if you do not like the licence or being honest about violating the licence (as I think he was but commenters were not) if you entirely disagree with it and think you can justify it. Personally I think it was a little bit of a kick in the teeth to a small company that couldn't see how they could make money with a better licence but might have come around some day - like a short rerun of the Trolltech thing only with a far worse original licence.

Transcript in progress. Will be up soon.

[dmarti]

The transcript is already started. Watch the LinuxWorld home page [linuxworld.com] or get the RSS feed [linuxworld.com] to be notified when it's up.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

People want to use an appliance computer as a general purpose computer and the use outside of distribution has always been specifically stated in the GPL to be outside the scope of the GPL.

What end users actually do with the program has always been outside the scope of the license. The GPLv3 did not change that. What Tivo is doing, however, is restricting end users from using a modified version of the program. That has always been against the license, also with the GPLv2, but has been made very clear in the GPLv3 that hardware tricks is no exception to the rule.

What happened is: Preventing end users from running a modified version has always been against the GPL. Tivo found a loop-hole, that allowed them to do it anyway. Or at least their lawyers thought so, and the FSF apparently thought that a judge might agree with Tivo that there actually was a hole. So they set out to fix the hole.

Re:Linus is right

[Taagehornet]

Nope, this guy is a troll [slashdot.org] who's been living here for a few years.