Jeremy Allison Talks Samba and GPLv3 167
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. (Score:2, Funny)
Didn't we just discuss this? (Score:2, Informative)
Samba Adopts GPLv3 For Future Releases [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
in other news... (Score:3, Funny)
NewsFlash! (Score:2, Funny)
Stay tuned for Slashdot's biggest show - THE DUPE WAR!
Post Roland Piquepaille Dupes! (Score:2)
Transcript? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
Transcript in progress. Will be up soon. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Transcript? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I miss Klerk, he had *class*
Jeremy.
Listen to the article?? (Score:3, Funny)
Dupe level still better than Digg (Score:3, Interesting)
It's their code (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
People who support "open source" and don't like RMS should stop using the GPL (any version).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Funny)
[[Citation Needed]]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Linus is right (Score:5, Informative)
From an interview with Linus Torvalds himself - http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html [www.tlug.jp] :
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:
Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did.
So... I'd say you are completely and utterly wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Linus is right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Write that into the license
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Linus is right (Score:4, Informative)
Nice impersonation though, although a bit too obvious
Jeremy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
RTFA.
Typo (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
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. 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: (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
no, what Tivo is doing is restricting end users from using a modified version of the program on the appliance computer hardware th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thats right.. they will stop buying mircosoft products because the want to use the open and free ones.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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. (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it just never happened often enough to cause serious problems.
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Uh no. Tivo S1 communit
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If people are still confusing you two, perhaps you need... better PR?
Re:Worng person to ask about licences (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Windows provides enough functionality in this same ares for the casual users.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
If you think GPL'd stuff is only for hackers and hobbyists, you obviously haven't look
Re: (Score:2)
They $700 get exchange, active directory logins and extra stuff that I don't use but
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)