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."

Nothing for you to see here. Move along.

[wanderingknight]

Repost.

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:

[evanbd]

Yes. We did. So why does the 'Dupe' tag not show up for it?

Re:

[Jeff DeMaagd]

No, that story was invented by CowboyNeal detractors just to embarrass him.

in other news...

[RelliK]

slashdot stops posting dupes. No wait...

NewsFlash!

[Anonymous Coward]

CowboyNeal is rising to the challenge of out-duping Zonk on the main page. The gloves are off. In this clash of titans, who will prevail? Zonk opens by fanning the irony flames with a data mining dupe. CowboyNeal replies with a Samba entry on a RMS theme. What will Zonk do? can you guess the next move?

Stay tuned for Slashdot's biggest show - THE DUPE WAR!

Post Roland Piquepaille Dupes!

[Dareth]

Zonk will do what he is best at, post more submissions, dupes or otherwise from Roland Piquepaille!

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!

Mod parent up

[bcat24]

I would also like to see a transcript.

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:Transcript?

[niceone]

Hey, this is Slashdot! Not listening to the podcast is just as quick as not reading the article!

Re:

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

What happened to the quality trolls we used to have on slashdot ? These jokers aren't even trying....

I miss Klerk, he had *class* :-).

Jeremy.

Listen to the article??

[valentyn]

We used to not read the article to reply. Well, I admit: this time I didn't listen to it.

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.

It's their code

[gilesjuk]

They can release it under any licence they like.

Do you really think a hardware vendor who implements Samba in their product would stop using it and write their own SMB implementation?

Moving important projects to GPL3 is a good idea as it prevents abuse of the code.

Re:

[laffer1]

I can tell you that I still plan to use it in MidnightBSD. I'm curious what Apple will do since some people think buying CUPS was a stunt to stop GPLv3 code entering OS X.

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:Awesome

[trolltalk.com]

Yeah, but this article is licensed under the GPL v 3 !!!

So you can't listen to it using GPL v2 software like linux.

(... and there's bound to be some idiot^Wphb^Wastroturfer out there who is ready to spout off about how this is *really really really* the case and suggest we all avoid the "problems" of the "viral open sores GPL" by going to Windows ....)

Re:

[QuantumG]

I agree with you.

People who support "open source" and don't like RMS should stop using the GPL (any version).

Re:

[Richard Steiner]

What does the GPL have to do with usage? It's a source license.

Re:

[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.

Re:

[QuantumG]

Exactly.

Re:

[VGPowerlord]

I prefer a more neutral list [opensource.org] rather than one that attempts to vilify other licenses in favor of their own.

Re:

[cortana]

So say that the FSF vilifies other licenses is pure hyperbole! The page merely points out why certain licenses are (or are not) compatible with the GPL, and whether or not they are as good as the GPL at preserving the four freedoms [gnu.org].

Re:

[VGPowerlord]

So say that the FSF vilifies other licenses is pure hyperbole! The page merely points out why certain licenses are (or are not) compatible with the GPL, and whether or not they are as good as the GPL at preserving the four freedoms.

Here are some choice excerpts from said list:

License of Netscape Javascript: "This disjunctive license is a good choice if you want to make your package GPL-compatible and MPL-compatible. However, you can also accomplish that by using the LGPL or the Guile license." Intentionall

Re:

[Moridineas]

Not sure what you're saying?

That people that don't like RMS shouldn't use any GPL software? or that they shouldn't themselves use the GPL?

Are you saying Linux should no longer be under the gpl?

Re:

[rustalot42684]

He only adopted the GPL because of pressure from others and has never believed in it.
[[Citation Needed]]

Re:

[QuantumG]

Well, just last month he claimed he understood the spirit of the GPL better than the people who wrote the damn thing:

You claim that I "misunderstood" the "spirit of the GPL".

Dammit, the GPL is a license. I understand it quite well. Probably better than most. The fact that the FSF then noticed that there were *other* things that they wanted to do, and that were *not* covered by the GPLv2, does *not* mean that they can claim that others "misunderstood" the license.

So tell me: who is the more confused one: the one who chose the license fifteen years ago, and realized what it means legally, and still stands behind it? I don't think so.

The whole idea that there is a philosophy behind the GPL and that is the spirit, not the words that are written down to satisfy the lawyers is just lost on the guy. He goes on to say:

The beauty of the GPLv2 is exactly that it's a "tit-for-tat" license, and you can use it without having to drink the kool-aid.

I've said that over and over again. It's the "spirit of the GPLv2". It's what has made it such a great license, that lots of people (and companies) can use, is very fundamentally that it's fair.

The fact that the FSF sees *another* spirit to it is absolutely not a reason to say that I'm "confused". Quite frankly, apparently I'm _less_ confused than they are, since I saw the GPLv2 for what it was, and they did not - and as a result they felt they needed to extend upon it, because the license didn't actually match what they thought it would do.

And now I hope you are as totally lost as I am. The "spirit of the GPLv2", what the hell does that mean? Maybe I just have this concept of a "spirit" of a document wrong but to me, it means "what the guy

Re:

[cHiphead]

We need to stop saying the 'spirit' and say the 'intent', THAT is what needs to be understood by all parties. Problem is, it will probably take a judge setting a precedent of just what the general and specific case intent is before its near universally agreed upon, until the next case where a different judge rules differently. Welcome to the snafus of the American legal system.

For fucks sake people, its a software license, its something for educated legal minds to argue over, not developers and random sla

Re:Linus is right

[QuantumG]

To Linus it's just a software license. To RMS and the rest of us who believe in Free Software, it's the legal embodiment of a philosophy. My only hope for the future is that people who don't care about the philosophy stick with GPLv2 and those that do, switch to GPLv3.

Re:

[greginnj]

The whole idea that there is a philosophy behind the GPL and that is the spirit, not the words that are written down to satisfy the lawyers is just lost on the guy.

I disagree. I don't think that 'whole idea' is 'lost on the guy'; I think he grasps that idea very well. He just disagrees with it. A license is a text you bring into a courtroom when necessary; it is not a token for an 'idea', 'philosophy', or 'spirit'. Those abstract entities may have motivated the creation of the license, but they do not

Re:

[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

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:

[QuantumG]

Heh, no. But that's some nice selective quoting. Linus likes Free Software and the GPL, because it gets him lots of code for his project. He doesn't actually think proprietary software is evil though. That's what RMS believes. That's the body and spirit of the GPL. As such, I don't think Linus should be using the GPL. Nor should anyone else who thinks proprietary software is morally ok. This is why Linus went with "the GPL version 2 only with exceptions for syscalls" for his license. He doesn't sub

Re:Linus is right

[flyingfsck]

Hmm, the FSF is not a church. It is not a gospel. It is not a faith. It is just a bunch of people who think that the best way to spread computer knowledge for the betterment of mankind is to turn software into a free commodity. You are free to do otherwise. Just write your own software then. Don't leach off other people's charity work for your profit. A good example is Tivo. Tivo can do whatever they want, provided that they write their own software and don't leach off GPL software. Tivo can either free up their code the way the GPL intends, or they can rewrite their system using Microsoft Windows, or VxWorks, Or Sun Solaris. It is their choice. That is all that the FSF and the GPL is about.

Re:

[gregorio]

It is just a bunch of people who think that the best way to spread computer knowledge for the betterment of mankind is to turn software into a free commodity.

The "betterment of mankind"? Why does every politicized person describes his cause as the "betterment of mankind"?

It's not the "betterment of mankind" you, the Democrats, the Republicans, Greenpeace, PETA, Shell, or anyone else is looking for. What "you people" are looking for is the ultimate victory of "your" ideologies and interests.

Stop pretend

Re:

[Antique Geekmeister]

No, I've seen worse, from people who couldn't imagine a business selling new software and software services rather than keeping your software secret. The worst I've seen was from the same person who, seriously, thought it was better to fight the Taliban in Baghdad rather than in Ohio.

He was a nice person in many ways, but completely confused about a lot of subtler software and political issues. And a big Slashdot fan, too.

Re:

[bytesex]

I think you are wrong. There's the 'you give back' aspect that's literally in the GPL, which is what Linus likes. And there's the 'we don't like proprietary software', which _isn't_ explicitly in the GPL, but which is what RMS thinks. As such, the GPL is usable to Linus, but since he doesn't live inside the head of RMS, he doesn't have to abide by his (not the GPL's) intentions. This isn't Soviet Russia, you know. People don't have to have the ultimately correct mindset only. He thinks 'share and shar

Re:

[Raenex]

He doesn't actually think proprietary software is evil though. That's what RMS believes. That's the body and spirit of the GPL. As such, I don't think Linus should be using the GPL. Nor should anyone else who thinks proprietary software is morally ok.

It's perfectly valid for co-existence. Many people who contribute to GPL software are also paid to work on proprietary software. Many people who use GPL software also use proprietary software. I'd guess that not even RMS would want people who don't share his binary world view to abandon GPL completely. I think he'd rather encourage them contribute and use as much GPL software as possible.

Re:

[Moridineas]

People who support "open source" and don't like RMS should stop using the GPL (any version).

How many ways is there to interpret that?

That rather depends on what "support open source" means..

How do you possibly get that? Do you equate "the GPL" with "any GPL software"? Just so we're clear no, I am not saying that.

What I'm saying is that if you think the FSF are wrong then don't use the FSF's licenses on your software. I don't think that is such a way out concept do you?

Like I said, depends on what you mean by "support open source." I've talked to some people who DO take the viewpoint that they won't use any GPL software--or vice versa, will ONLY use GPL software, because of their beliefs. I don't particularly care either way, I prefer BSD, I use FreeBSD. Even FreeBSD has GPLed software in it (though the amount is steadily decreasing!)

No. I wasn't saying that either. But if you want my opinion, Linux shouldn't have been released under the GPL. 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.

Not really sure how valid that is. Sounds like a good interview question for Lin

Re:

[sonamchauhan]

> People who support "open source" and don't like RMS should stop using the GPL (any version).

Write that into the license

Re:

[Antique Geekmeister]

GPL is "free", not merely open. And you don't have to like someone to find part of their beliefs helpful or relevant or very insightfu, but not agree with everything. That's basic science, and basic law, and consistent with what Richard says. Allow people to compete in the world of ideas, just don't take away his or our freedoms to do the same.

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:

[Taagehornet]

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

Re:

[Antique Geekmeister]

Wait: so you're suggesting we should continue with the GPLv2 and stay vulnerable to the known vulnerabilities? That's unwise: the patent issue alone is a compelling one for us to switch to GPLv3 immediately.

For example, examine how the patents surrounding Microsoft's XML tools from SenderID poisoned public acceptance of the SPF anti-forged-email tools and basically sidelined if not outright ruined the project.

Re:

[Tony Hoyle]

GPLv3 would change this how exactly? SPF is a speficication, as is SenderID. Software licenses are irrelevant to them.

Re:

[OldeTimeGeek]

Not completely true. It would have required the use some of Microsoft's IP (which would have rendered it unusable by people who strongly adhere to the GPL) and a lot of folks felt that Microsoft's responses to questions about it were, ultimately, less than persuasive.

Re:

[Antique Geekmeister]

Amen. Samba is critical to a lot of hardware projects, particularly cheap network file servers. The patent protections and anti-Tivoization clauses are vital to keep Jeremy's and Andrew's, and our, work available to us for the future.

Watch what happens as "Trusted Computed", which should have been named "DRM Everything", will play out with DVD or hard drives registered to operate only with certain software, but that software hooked through Samba to provide file access to the contents. As much work as Micros

Re:

[QuantumG]

All these questions and more answered in the podcast linked to by the summary!

RTFA.

Typo

[ImaLamer]

LTFA

Re:

[PitaBred]

LTTFA. Listen The Fucking Article or Listen To Fucking Article aren't quite correct grammatically. If you correct someone, do it... correctly ;)

Re:

[sumdumass]

What if you cannot listen to the podcast? I don't have a working sound card, It doesn't seem right posting an article in a form that cannot be accessed in the same way the site is.

Re:

[ShieldW0lf]

It doesn't matter anyway... Despite the snide remarks, the podcast actually doesn't answer the parents question. Unless you call "OEMS and hardware manufacturers who distribute GPLv3 software should of course speak with their lawyers" an answer.

Re:

[sumdumass]

I dunno about apple but I noticed that I don't necessarily agree with the GPLv3. For me, Someone who just uses Samba in about 20 or 30 different sites and on multiple servers, I have about lost any reasons not to use Microsoft's products with this switch to a license I don't agree with. I mean, it was the licensing I disagreed with windows servers, it wasn't that samba was better or anything, In fact, it was more difficult to emulate windows domain controllers and such on it. Now that both options have a li

Re:

[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

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:

[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

Re:

[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 th

Re:

[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 an

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[Alphager]

There exist no such thing as an "appliance computer". THe Tivo is a normal computer, to which Tivo Inc. added some restrictions.

Re:

[sumdumass]

There exist no such thing as an "appliance computer". THe Tivo is a normal computer, to which Tivo Inc. added some restrictions.

Wrong. An appliance computer is a term for a computer that does one specific task. That task might be complexed and involves many tasks but the goal in one thing. A VCR is an example of an appliance and Tivo is the same. A Network attached storage and others are appliances too.

Re:

[Alphager]

There exist no such thing as an "appliance computer". THe Tivo is a normal computer, to which Tivo Inc. added some restrictions.

Wrong. An appliance computer is a term for a computer that does one specific task. That task might be complexed and involves many tasks but the goal in one thing. A VCR is an example of an appliance and Tivo is the same. A Network attached storage and others are appliances too.

No, they are normal computers who have been limited to only do one task. An appliance is something that is physically capable of doing only one thing (think of a shaker). The examples you mentioned are normal computers who have been crippled.

Re:

[sumdumass]

It doesn't matter what you boiled it all down to, what matters is what you buy in the process of buying the system. If you purchased an appliance, then thats what you got. It has no barring on your ability to hook blades up to your refrigerator and mow the lawn with it. You still purchased that device.

and to that point, when you purchase a glorified VCR, that is what you purchased. Not some general purpose computer. And it isn't that hard of a concept.

Re:

[jafac]

While I'd agree that your characterization of "appliance computer" as a computer that has been "crippled" is accurate; it is also incomplete.

If all you want is a device that does X, and packaging a computer as an appliance that does only X saves both development costs, and administrative overhead, then I'd say it's a damn useful crippled computer.

I wouldn't want to have an appliance as a desktop system to do my accounting/web browsing and email.

But I wouldn't want to have to deal with all the administrative

Re:

[dfghjk]

Bullshit. There is no such thing as a "normal computer", there are only devices made to do certain things. Some are fixed function; others are not.

Re:

[DuncanE]

"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."

Thats right.. they will stop buying mircosoft products because the want to use the open and free ones.

Re:

[sumdumass]

Thats right.. they will stop buying mircosoft products because the want to use the open and free ones.

I don't think people will see it that way. currently and for the immediate future the Demand for MS products are far greater then FOSS style products. This is for many reasons but mostly I would say is that it is because of dependency on a product that doesn't work without windows.

so it doesn't really matter what they want Or even what you think they want to use, Once it gets down to this, they will stop

Re:

[Secrity]

"But this license is reckless and selfish."

Nobody is forcing you to use their GPLv3 licensed software; don't use software licensed under GPLv3 if you think that it is reckless.

If you want to see selfish, read the license on almost any copyrighted commercial product that can be used on or with a computer.

Re:

[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 fingert

Re:

[sumdumass]

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

You think? Because I voiced an opinion? I will try to look smarter next time and jump into group think mode agreeing with everything being pushed at me. Bottom line is that the GPLV3 is selfish and reckless, it doesn't do what we were told it would do, most of it will be challenged and shot down in court and when the answer to a question is ask a lawyer, it is simply to complexed and convoluted for the job.

This is a brave (NOT foolish) attempt to pull the "

Re:

[Xenographic]

> Bottom line is that the GPLV3 is selfish and reckless, it doesn't do what we were told it would do, most of it will be challenged and shot down in court and when the answer to a question is ask a lawyer, it is simply to complexed and convoluted for the job.

So you're a lawyer, now? I won't go into selfish or reckless, but I'll trust the professor emeritus of law who drafted it over you. I assume the ineffective part is talk about the Novell deal. But copyright law requires copyright holder permission

Re:

[Ohreally_factor]

You're doing a good job of voicing objections to the GPL v3, and I have nothing to really add. I just wanted you to know that, despite the piling on you're getting from the 'tards, most people that understand the issues agree with you. Don't let a very vocal minority shut you up by repeating the same stupidities over and over. They've got such an emotional stake in the FSF ideology that they cannot listen to reason. If you're not attacked outright, then you'll be given the condescending "you misunderstand".

Re:

[Ohreally_factor]

That second paragraph should read:

The FSFtards continue to hammer the LKML [iu.edu] with their propaganda, to little effect [iu.edu]. (I wonder if their strategy is to distract the kernel developers so that Hurd (excuse me, GNU/Hurd) can catch up.)

I dropped a greater than. =) Why didn't anyone warn me not to eat cous cous directly over the keyboard?

I don't see that happening.

[Xenographic]

> Lol. You remind me of the type of person who hates lawyers because they promised you the world in a lawsuit, you paid them everything and ended up losing. The entire Idea behind modern lawyers is to create controversy that they can settle.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Contract lawyers are supposed to PREVENT lawsuits by drawing up an ironclad contract. The people who specialize in litigation take over after that. Believe me, they're not the same lawyers and so the contract lawyers have no incentiv

Re:

[sumdumass]

There's infringement as soon as you do something the copyright holder hasn't permitted and which copyright law requires permission for. The copy is NOT legal (i.e. it's infringing) if it's made in violation of the GPL. You violate the GPL the second you procure the conveyance of a copy because copyright law requires permission for it and you don't have permission per the GPLv3. How hard is that to understand? Okay, so copyright law isn't easy to understand, but you have to realize that it covers more than

Re:

[mrsbrisby]

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,

No, it just never happened often enough to cause serious problems.

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.

Read that last sentence you wrote again.

On my a TiVO, I cannot change the code if necessary. I have to wait for TiVO to cha

Re:

[sumdumass]

Read that last sentence you wrote again.

Leaching is the act of using the code and not putting your changes or improvements back to the community. This has always been the Idea behind the GPL except that it required you to provide the source if you did make changed. However, giving back outside the act of making the source available has never been part of the agreement. So, If I used Kwrite and changed it for the better but didn't share my changed, I was leaching it. It is gave back by providing the sourc

Re:

[mrsbrisby]

From my experience, what he wanted is what the license says.

Then your experience is limited. Most license disputes are questioning what the terms state, not whether they have been upheld. The CDA was enacted for exactly this reason- so that license disputes could be handled by mediator.

Judges do not usually expect people to be infallible, which is why they do infact hear arguments from people, instead of from Noah Webster.

This is the problem. I don't see it as slowing a computer down.

Uh no. Tivo S1 communit

Re:

[Antique Geekmeister]

Overall I agree with what you wrote. But I'd like to disagree on 2 small points.

1: Other poeple are working on free softwae, just as groups besides Amnety International work on human rights. They're some of the most clear and effective leaders in the work, but not the only ones. Various BSD projects, for example, take this seriously.

2: RMS is not the whole of the FSF or the GNU projects. He's certainly the leader, and his beliefs have compelling power, but he's certainly not a cult leader of followers of un

Re:

[bWareiWare.co.uk]

But the big difference is that the GPLv3 only licenses copying. If you are just using Samba inside your organization you are not bound by its terms. Microsoft believes the EULA licenses your use of the software.

I agree you your concerns about the GLPv3's PR impact, but the choice is:

Use software where you do not like the terms you would have to agree to if you modified and redistributed it, or

Use software where you have to agree to terms you do not like to install it, and you can not modify or redistribute

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:

[dbIII]

Whoops - sorry about that and many apologies.

Re:

[pchan-]

Hey Jeremy, I just wanted to thank you and the rest of the Samba developers for moving to GPLv3 and generally doing what it takes to keep free software free.

Re:

[Just Some Guy]

You're confusing me with tridge. I don't know why people do that. [...] I'm just better at P.R. :-)

If people are still confusing you two, perhaps you need... better PR?

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:

[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

Re:

[byolinux]

If a license prevents you from sharing with your neighbour, you need to decide whether it is better to comply with the license, or be a good person.

I'd say Tridge simply believed that YOUR freedom, and the freedom of everyone else was more important than the terms of the license which forbid reverse engineering.

(Also, typing 'help' on a telnet session doesn't seem much like reverse engineering to me.)

Re:

[dbIII]

(Also, typing 'help' on a telnet session doesn't seem much like reverse engineering to me.)

There was obviously more to it than that even if that was the starting point of the effort to replace the software with something else. I suggest you look at what was written at the time again - but yes the licence was unpleasant.

Re:

[Knuckles]

Excuse me if I don't reread everything, it was enough to read it all the first time ;) But the article I linked to refers to a demo by Tridgell of how to interoperate with BK using telnet.

At the time there was also a lively discussion about whether Tridgell was bound by the license agreement at all, and no real conclusion was arrived at, IIRC. I think Tridgell himself denied that he ever accepted the license or that he was bound in any way by the fact that he was employed by the same organization that had a

Re:

[dbIII]

Usually it is a very simple situation where if you use the software or interact with it you are supposed to comply with the terms of the licence, even if you don't like the licence. It looked like that to me at the time. Anyway, I got people mixed up here, and as you suggest there were people who believed the terms of the licence did not matter at all.

Re:

[Knuckles]

where if you use the software or interact with it you are supposed to comply with the terms of the licence

I don't think this is the case, unless I agreed to the license. How am I supposed to comply with a license whose terms I have never read nor accepted?

Re:

[dbIII]

So are you saying it should be illegal to reverse engineer proprietary software

It was not illegal just against the terms of the licence. This condition is of course one of the reasons he saw it as a bad licence as far as I can recall from the statements at the time. There is no point trying to read between the lines or bring extra baggage from other converations into this.

Re:

[sumdumass]

The people who would use Samba would pay attention to a license. It isn't something you accidentally find and click your way through until it "just works". You will be reading quite a bit to get it going and the license will be know to you.

Windows provides enough functionality in this same ares for the casual users.

Re:

[Antique Geekmeister]

No. No, Windows really doesn't. Their services are expensive to license, difficult to support, and a basic security nightmare with useless documentation.

While Samba often tails providing new features of CIFS, formerly SMB, its overall security and robustness and scalability make it clearly superior. It's graceful integration with NFS, FTP, HTTPS, or other services are even better. This is why almost all of those cheap little network storage boxes, and a lot of big ones, rely on Samba. Whenever I've worked w

Re:

[sumdumass]

No. No, Windows really doesn't. Their services are expensive to license, difficult to support, and a basic security nightmare with useless documentation.

it isn't all that expensive. $700 or less gives you an OEM version of windows server and when you think about that being a one time investment lasting over 4 years, it doesn't seem like much at all. Especially when you make several times that much weekly off the server. that is unless it is some home use product. And the security isn't really an issue ei

Re:

[Antique Geekmeister]

That seems fair enough. But that $700 for an OEM server license is a capital cost, and not recoverable. It's not relevant to the money you make off the service *unless* it means you make more money than off of a Samba server, and that's pretty unlikely. And the capital cost of the heavier duty hardware that the Windows server requires, downtime for software upgrades and reboots, pain of upgrade paths, etc. are much higher.

If you think GPL'd stuff is only for hackers and hobbyists, you obviously haven't look

Re:

[sumdumass]

That seems fair enough. But that $700 for an OEM server license is a capital cost, and not recoverable. It's not relevant to the money you make off the service *unless* it means you make more money than off of a Samba server, and that's pretty unlikely. And the capital cost of the heavier duty hardware that the Windows server requires, downtime for software upgrades and reboots, pain of upgrade paths, etc. are much higher.

They $700 get exchange, active directory logins and extra stuff that I don't use but

Re:

[Antique Geekmeister]

OK, that makes more sense. The $700 for just the license, with the Active Directory and other tools, makes more sense. But for that $700, you can buy a low end Terabyte network storage server, or buy two for on-line backups, and you're basically done. Storage itself is a commodity: you no longer need big iron to do quite large storage.

I missed the sarcastic frustration in your hackers crack: it's hard to detect sometimes. I've seen people as experienced and grounded as you seem to be toos out that kind of c

Re:

[sumdumass]

I missed the sarcastic frustration in your hackers crack: it's hard to detect sometimes. I've seen people as experienced and grounded as you seem to be toos out that kind of claim seriously: not as often as I used to, I admit. I'm not clear that you appreciate the "business side of things" in the long term. Compatibility is good in the short term, but the patent and Tivoization problems have been getting worse. Unless we want to see things like the fundamentally DRM-based "Trusted Computing" tools from Mic

Re:

[RLiegh]

Samba supports non-linux systems about the same way that WINE does; very half-assedly. If you're not using it on Linux, you should be greatful it runs at all...so what if it lacks core functionality.