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."

Re:Awesome

[cyphercell]

The original post linked to a FAQ, this one links to a podcast interview of Jeremy Allison. The first one shouldn't have made it through, this one is better, welcome to the world of the firehouse - a story that only links to a FAQ is not a story.

Re:Linus is right

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL was devised primarily by RMS to promote his views on software licensing/distribution. If you don't agree with his views, why license under the GPL? Sooner or later, the license will be revised to match RMS's outlook.

There are tons [fsf.org] of open sources licenses, so if you don't agree with the ideology behind the GPL, it doesn't make sense to use it.

Transcript?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody have a transcript? I can't be the only one who hates having to listen to something for ten minutes instead of reading it in one or two minutes. Is there anything that actually makes audio necessary? No? Then have it as an optional extra for the people on the go, don't have it as your default format when you know it's going to be decidedly suboptimal for the majority of your visitors!

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[sumdumass]

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.

well, the GPLv3 goes a little further. And some, including me question the realm of the spirit it is in. I get moded down every time I post something to that effect, I find it interesting that people would rather hide the idea then discuss the legitimacy of it.

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.

I'm not sure what your talking about when you mention Microsoft. Unless your trying to say that the vast jump in approachs to distributing that the GPLv3 took in the attempt to lock someone into it's clutches by mere advocating it (as I read on Groaklaw). I don't think that was ever the intent of the GPLv2, the intent there was to regulate people who distribute it.

As far as Tivo goes, lets get something streight, leaching isn't a bad term with free software. It has always been ok to leach the programs, distributing without providing the source has been the bad thing. These are two entirely different things. But Tivo did give the source back, The problem is that they product an appliance not a general purpose computer. 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. The job of a software license isn't to ensure compliance of the hardware someone wants to run it on. There are certain applications like software radios that the GPLv3 are completely incompatible with now because the FCC requires, or did there has been some changes lately, but they require the radio to be locked down from changes by consumers. And the GPLv3 says this isn't acceptable now. And there is other things too. But more to the point, Hardware manufacturers can actually lose their IP now so vendor provided drivers might be harder to come by and that I think is too great of a cost to pay because a few people want to use an appliance computer as a general purpose computer.

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

If you honestly believe this, I think you didn't understand the GPL in the first place. The intent has always be so that the code remains free and that you can change it if necessary. Not to control hardware and make sure you can run your own stuff on the hardware which is something that has always been explicitly held outside the scope of the license.

And now there is this MS Novell Patent clause that will backfire and cause a lot of problems too. If you think Microsoft is disrespecting the GPLv3 now, wait until they craft their license to place everyone into a little Novell situation and then sell their product sans the clause for 10 times the cost in order to kick the you can no longer convey a GPLv3 covered work again for anyone who uses an Microsoft products. When no major distributer is able to convey a GPLv3 covered work because of wording in the GPLv3 itself, I guess people will take notice. But this license is reckless and selfish.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[sumdumass]

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.

no, what Tivo is doing is restricting end users from using a modified version of the program on the appliance computer hardware they sold. There is a difference. You are able to use the software, just not on the hardware they provided. And I don't see an issue with this. The manufacturer doesn't have to open everything up so you can hack around with their products. And they shouldn't have to. You bought an appliance not a computer. Because it can do the other doesn't mean it has to.

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.

It wasn't a loophole at all. It was there by design. The GPLv2 and earlier said explicitly that anything outside the act of modifying/distributing was outside the license. Of course Tivo gave the code back, you could modify it and run it on other devices, you could change it or add parts of it to other programs. You could even build a Tivo like device and run it on that. The only thing they stopped you from doing was turning their appliance into another appliance that they never intended it to be.

But the Tivo part is only the start. They went too far and it would appear that they didn't even do that very well. You see, the GPLv3 doesn't even stop Tivo from doing the same stuff. They can still disable the device if their special version of software isn't running.

Dupe level still better than Digg

[Random BedHead Ed]

I've been visiting Digg a lot lately and I'd have to say that the dupe level there is far worse, especially lately. The difference is editorial control, which Digg's "wisdom of the crowds" can't really match. A zillion people picking front page stories are going to pick dupes, whereas the once-a-week rate here is considerably better.

Re:Linus is right

[10101001 10101001]

Imagine I own a vineyard. Also, imagine I wrote up a contract between me and my neighbor to exchange a bushel of grapes for $5. Now, imagine after signing the contract, my neighbor decides he'd really like white grapes. It happens that I don't grow white grapes on my land, so I'd have to buy them at a cost of $6 (where my own grapes have an effective cost of $4). Since the contract is so vaguely worded, one could say* that my neighbor has every right to demand the white grapes, even though the spirit of the contract was to exchange my grapes for his $5. Or, in short, sometimes the legalize that is used to cover an issue isn't accurately enough written to deal with issues that might arise.

Beyond this, one has to remember that 15 years ago, the DMCA didn't exist. Copyright law has changed in many other countries as well. A major part of the GPLv3 was to attempt to better harmonize the language to be more consistent with international copyright law. So, there's at least a few reasons to try to better describe in legal terms the intent of the GPL in a new license.

*IANAL, so I don't know how well this argument would actually stand in court. After all, intent is often used when the language of a contract is vague. The major problem with the GPL's vagueness is that the GPL's intent was to cover usage (specifically, there's an innate assumption that one can use the software (look into First-sale Doctrine)) while copyright doesn't provide a direct means for that. As such, the GPLv3 is left to attack the common means used to limit the use of GPL'd software.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[Ferret55]

Let me be plain for a moment, you are an idiot.

        But this license is reckless and selfish.

This is a brave (NOT foolish) attempt to pull the "reckless and selfish" companies that abuse the spirit of the GPL licence for their own gains back into their place. Make no mistake this is the COMMUNITY'S code, not microsoft et al's. I am happy for microsoft to turn their back on linux, free software, open source and the whole gamut of freebies that I have at the pointy points of my fingertips. Or haven't you already noticed microsoft trying to lock/ban any user from using linux code with the whole SCO debarcle. Wake up and smell the legal action you idiot. The world is extremely hostile towards free software and the fact that it has become so successful has meant many companies want to hitch a ride on the free software train and carve out their own "open source" fortress. Now that they've seen how good it is, some companies are trying to keep it for themselves and not share. Just like patents, patenting was tool to help the underdog to get an edge, not for big companies to hoarde and lock up the market with their "ideas" it was supposed to provide innovation and protection to those less privileged and thanks to big corporation's influence and flooding the system with inane grabs at ip, the system has failed.

Then along comes the GPL, meant to protect users and developers and fuel innovative concepts that all of us (the less fortunate) can benefit from, and we see history repeating itself, the big corps have shon their big shiny eye on the treasure trove of ip, innovation and code and thought "how can we make all of this ours? and if we can't make it ours how can we force people to stop using it". Now microsoft is swinging it big patent clad IP hammer at the founding pillar of the GPL and you have the GAUL to say amending the GPL to stop these greedy slugs is reckless and selfish? Who the fuck do you think you are? I don't CARE if it causes problems for companies, COMPANIES are the main cause of all this crap that is going on in the first place.

And lets get one thing straight, when it came to Tivo "giving the source back", lets be crystal clear, it was NEVER THEIRS to begin with, they modified code that belonged to the community and tried to keep it for themselves. And the point about hardware vendors losing their IP is a crock of shit also, patent protection is passed only to users for the software being used, it is hardly as broad as you think, and anyone that locks their hardware is literally locking themselves out of the market anyway, bluray and hd players can go get stuffed if they have the nerve to thikn i'll buy their drives, they'd be better suited as paper weights.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[sumdumass]

The manufacturer doesn't have to open everything, and we (ie, GPLv3 authors) don't have to allow the manufacturer to distribute our code. In fact, we want it to be the case that anywhere are code is run*, we can hack "their" products to use it in applications that the manufacturer didn't necessarily intend.

I gotta pay more attention to what going on. I keep seeing people that tell me what I decided but never do I see anyone asking me what I decided. Somehow, I think the idea or the term WE is overused and over valued.

It was only "by design" in respect to the fact that copyright doesn't cover usage, so there's no way to create a license to directly cover usage. And as you point out, the GPLv3 doesn't really resolve the issue of usage because there's still various tricks to void the intended effect (burning the GPLv3 code into ROM is a simple example). Truthfully, there's no way to insure usage abilities with some sort of generic distribution license** because any legalized wording would leave a manufacturer to follow the legal definition of the wording but not the intent (a great example comes to mind, of simply crippling any "invalid" software to run at one millionth the speed of official code, allowing some of the code to run if it's "invalid", or in some other way still allowing a use of "some kind" without actually allowing what the GPLv3 author intended). The spirit of the GPLv2 and GPLv3 includes the ability to actually use the code in question. Just because there might be no way to legally enforce that doesn't mean it wasn't an intent; it just means there's a lack of legal footing to cover all cases.

You can actually use the code in question. You just cannot use it on the appliance you purchased from Tivo. And this is a real stumbling block for me. The idea of free is a two way street. You have to be free in order for me to be free when we are acting in the same arena of thoughts. Otherwise your freedom is only a position of power over me, It isn't freedom at all, it is oppression.

The GPLv3 jumped the spirit and I am surprised that I have received this many comments about it. I have mentioned it before and usually get ignored and modded down or something.

**IANAL, but feel free to prove me wrong.

As for the generic license, How about this, "All freedoms expressed or protected by this license are implicit in their intended design, Any usage combined with specific hardware must allow the benefiters of these freedom to express that freedom with respect to the covered works and the hardware it is distributed with. Nothing in this clause stops the ability of the covered works from being used with other combinations of hardware and it placed no demand on any distributer to make it able to work with other hardware outside not being able to deny it. It places no demand on any distributer to ensure something not included inside their specific act of distributing the covered works with the hardware as it was intended to be used by the distributer when sold outside the fact that they cannot stop or deny you the freedoms protect by this license in respect the the hardware itis associated with"

Seems simple, conveys the message and the point, closes all the "loopholes" (that wasn't there in the GPLv2 despite the claims) and ensures that when you buy a product that contains GPLv3 covered software, that you can use it after making some changes. It doesn't need a team of lawyers to determine if you think you will be screwed after touching it. It doesn't pose a threat to hardware vendors who feel they need a way to go back on companies that use the drivers to steal feature designs and produce clones products.