Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Remove Samba From OS X 10.7 Because of GPLv3

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the anything-you-can-do dept.

GNU is Not Unix 1075

recoiledsnake writes "The upcoming release of Mac OS X 10.7 Lion Server will remove the formerly bundled open source Samba software and replace it with Apple's own tools for Windows file sharing and network directory services. In both Mac OS X Server and client editions, Samba enables Macs to share files with Windows clients on the network and access Windows file servers. It has also later allowed Mac OS X Server to work as an NT Domain Controller to manage network accounts and make roaming profiles and home directories available to Windows PC users. However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially. Apple is now said to be recommending Active Directory to users who are still dependent upon the older NT Domain Controller network directory services. Apple has previously stopped contributing code to GCC and started looking at other options like LLVM because of GCC's switch to GPLv3."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

GPL is the problem (-1, Troll)

centristas (2025260) | more than 3 years ago | (#35599822)

Seriously, if you try to promote freedom and free code, you have to allow people to use it how they want. If you try to define what's allowed and try to get people to do or not to do what YOU want them, you aren't promoting free code. Your code is just as "bad" as proprietary code. True freedom is letting people do what they want, even if they have different values than you.

GPL is like promoting free speech until someone saids something YOU don't like. True freedom is letting people do what they want. That includes making money with the code, or using that code in a larger proprietary code. If you do not allow this you're a hypocrite.

It's backwards thinking and does no good to free and open source movement, as companies won't even be considering using it. GPL alone has created a large problem. It has made companies associate open source with huge legal trouble, and generally will make companies avoid open sourcing and open source code completely just because of GPL. They rather get the easier and guaranteed legally good alternative, which is licensing from other companies like MPEG-LA for H.264 and Microsoft for WP7 and so on.. Yes, it costs money. But when dealing with companies, it's a lot easier for them and solves many troubles that the hypocrites at GPL headquearters have caused for the whole open source movement. This is why I support true open source licenses that allow both free and proprietary use. They are the real free licenses, not GPL, and unless we deal with that hypocricy Microsoft will always win. I'm personally disgusted by this move by Samba team, as they're the ones that try to make it easy to both move away from Windows and integrate with other operating systems. GPL is bad.

Re:GPL is the problem (3, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35599840)

GPL is bad.

Bullshit.

Re:GPL is the problem (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35599908)

You're either for software freedom or your not. GPL restricts what you can, therefor is not free.

Re:GPL is the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600004)

True, but other licenses, like BSD, allow others to place restrictions on what you can do.

Re:GPL is the problem (3, Interesting)

lisaparratt (752068) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600148)

A natural consequence of their freedom. A benevolent dictator's still a dictator, and in this case benevolence goes against true freedom.

Re:GPL is the problem (4, Insightful)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600270)

Having a single primary rule (with a small set of rules designed to support that rule) does not make you a dictator.

Re:GPL is the problem (2)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600166)

How?

The BSD code is still out there. The proprietary commercial code that used the BSD code is not the BSD code.

Re:GPL is the problem (-1, Redundant)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600078)

I wish I had mod points for you.

Re:GPL is the problem (5, Insightful)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600240)

You're either for software freedom or your not. GPL restricts what you can, therefor is not free.

This kind of "either you see it my way our you're wrong" statement is NOT a good argument.

There are real reasons why the GPL versions (and other licenses) are problematic for various folks, and this kind of assertion acknowledges none of them.

You can learn the factual basis for arguments against or in favor of various open source or free software licenses at the OSI site [opensource.org] and at the FSF site [gnu.org] .

Re:GPL is the problem (5, Insightful)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600314)

You're either for personal freedom or you're not. Civil rights stop me from enslaving people, therefore I'm not free.

If I release some "free software", then someone else comes along and entangles it with their own proprietary software and adds their own restrictions, then the part that is my contribution is no longer free. The software itself is not free, in the same way that a slave is not free. The software has been enslaved. So allowing people to do whatever they want to my software is contrary to my software's freedom.

Re:GPL is the problem (1, Troll)

centristas (2025260) | more than 3 years ago | (#35599912)

GPL is bad.

Bullshit.

Bullshit. BSD license is much more free than GPL.

Re:GPL is the problem (3, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600296)

How does that support the view that the GPL is bad?

Re:GPL is the problem (5, Insightful)

lordandmaker (960504) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600388)

That depends upon your version of 'free'.

GPL forces the freedom of derivatives, BSD retains the freedom to make non-free derivatives.

To some, without the enforced 'freedom' it's not truly free. To others, with the enforced freedom it's not really free.

This isn't an argument anybody is about to win.

Re:GPL is the problem (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35599916)

GPL is bad.

Bullshit.

Strong argument there.

Re:GPL is the problem (5, Informative)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35599938)

the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially

This is a gross mis-representation of GPLv3, and obfuscates the real basis of argument that Apple may have in conforming to the licensing terms.

Re:GPL is the problem (1)

mveloso (325617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600132)

Nice statement. Facts please?

Re:GPL is the problem (5, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600300)

The GLv3 doesn't say that you can't use the software commercially. This article looks like just another shot in the whole "Open Source = BAD" war, from yet another FUD-packer (in this case, the member of the AppleInsider staff who wrote the original article).

Re:GPL is the problem (0)

Superken7 (893292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35599960)

Wow, really thoughtful. Thanks for sharing those deep arguments against the grandparent poster. Almost convinced me!

Truth is, for better or worse GPL *IS* restrictive. Projects should use it if they want to, with its consequences.
In this case, not mixing up GPLv3 software with commercial software VS more restrictive conditions that might imply people stop using it, or even worse, contributing back to it.
(correct me if I'm wrong)

Re:GPL is the problem (5, Informative)

Superken7 (893292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600000)

woops, OK. It appears GPLv3 allows commercial use. The summary got it wrong? (surprise!)

Re:GPL is the problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600334)

It allows commercial use, but is often a poison pill for companies. It means they can't lock down devices (which may be require for content license agreements), allows possible security holes, it messes with patents. Essentially GPL3 has a viral enough effect on products that it become not worth it to include the software. Apple showed this by replacing the software and you will see that GPL2 to GPL3 will only slow down development because corporations will not use and contribute to the software.

Re:GPL is the problem (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600342)

woops, OK. It appears GPLv3 allows commercial use. The summary got it wrong? (surprise!)

You must be new here. What did you do with the person who has user id # 893292 (wow, we're at the point where 6-digit IDs count as old-timers :-)

Seriously, welcome to the world of the paid commercial FUD-packer (TFA was written by AppleInsider staff, who should have known better).

Re:GPL is the problem (1, Offtopic)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600054)

Is a good fertilizer. Don't mix it up with the good for nothing GPL.

Re:GPL is the problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600266)

GPL is bad.

Bullshit.

Now there's a towering intellectual reply to a well reasoned arguement...

Re:GPL is the problem (0)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35599884)

No, no you don't have to allow corporations to make money from your (donated) code.

Re:GPL is the problem (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600050)

Well if the code can't be used by corporations or business citizens, how is anyone supposed to make money? This GPL restriction makes no sense.

 

Re:GPL is the problem (1)

lisaparratt (752068) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600178)

They're not, they're meant to subsist off the glory of having their name plastered across codebases world-wide. It's all about the egos, baby!

Re:GPL is the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600268)

Because it doesn't. Read the License text before you make stupid comments .

Re:GPL is the problem (1)

Kenshin (43036) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600154)

At the same time, you don't have to expect anyone to use your (donated) code.

Re:GPL is the problem (0)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600374)

Absolutely correct. I should have stipulated that.

Somehow, parent's anti-GPL screed is "insightful" and my post is a "troll". <looks at URL bar> Yup, this is Slashdot <blinks> I'll be in my room.

Re:GPL is the problem (-1, Flamebait)

desertrat_it (650209) | more than 3 years ago | (#35599904)

Thank you for your take on that, paid shill.

Re:GPL is the problem (2)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600060)

Claiming someone is a paid shill because they disagree with you is the lamest way to lose an argument.

Re:GPL is the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600382)

I agree 100% with the OP's post but he's still a shill/troll. His timestamp, UID, post history (none), and unrelated Microsoft mention shows that. Same guy who's been trolling /. the last 20 days.

Re:GPL is the problem (5, Interesting)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35599932)

True freedom is letting people do what they want.

And under the GPLv3, you can still do whatever YOU want. The exception comes when you redistribute, because at that point it's not YOU using it, it's SOMEONE ELSE.

Re:GPL is the problem (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600002)

True freedom is letting people do what they want.

And under the GPLv3, you can still do whatever YOU want. The exception comes when you redistribute, because at that point it's not YOU using it, it's SOMEONE ELSE.

If a developer in the forest offers to distribute 3rd party GPLv3 code, and no-one is there to see this, has a GPLv3 violation occured?

Re:GPL is the problem (1)

Sechr Nibw (1278786) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600222)

No, because if there is no one to see it, then the developer doesn't have anyone to accept the offer, so (s)he hasn't distributed it!

Next moral dilemma, please!

Re:GPL is the problem (0)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600170)

What I want is the ability to use it and not be told my customers can't. GPLv3 reduces the value of anything licensed under it. It is the surest way to prevent commercial software from using that technology. If the world were a commune, commercial software wouldn't be necessary. But last I checked, the grocery store called obtaining without purchasing shoplifting.

Re:GPL is the problem (4, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600248)

What?

The GPLv3 prevents someone from redistributing GPL'd software and saying to the end user "you cannot replace this software, you cannot alter or modify it in place." The only people who have a problem with the GPLv3 are those who enjoyed making an end-run around the spirit of the GPLv2 by distributing source but crippling the hardware it was used on.

Re:GPL is the problem (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600308)

But last I checked, the grocery store called obtaining without purchasing shoplifting.

Shoplifting (stealing) isn't obtaining without purchase, it's removing something from the property owner's possession without the required compensation.

Re:GPL is the problem (5, Informative)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600408)

What I want is the ability to use it and not be told my customers can't.

So long as you pass on to your customers the benefits that you gained by adopting GPL'd software, no problem. They can use it. If you want to pass on a version with additional restrictions on what they can do with the software, then no, you can't do that. And that's the entire point of the GPL. Is it so hard to understand?

Re:GPL is the problem (1)

lga (172042) | more than 3 years ago | (#35599958)

I think you have a good point there. In trying to place extra restrictions and obligations on free software GPL3 will actually reduce the usage of said software. It's the coders choice, of course, but I think GPL3 is a bad choice.

Re:GPL is the problem (3, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600410)

I think you have a good point there. In trying to place extra restrictions and obligations on free software GPL3 will actually reduce the usage of said software.

I don't think anybody disputes that. Simply, for some usage is not the most important goal.

With the due differences, it's like selling a car which verifies if you are drunk before it lets you drive it. Sure, it won't sell as much as other cars, but you know your cars are contributing much less than others to car accidents.

Re:GPL is the problem (1)

brunascle (994197) | more than 3 years ago | (#35599980)

if you try to promote freedom and free code

That's the thing, the GPL isn't about free code, it's about free software. It's about the end user's freedom, not the developer's. That's what differentiates it from the BSD license.

GPL is not the problem. (2)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35599988)

Errr. what?

I don't completely understand the problem here.

The GPLv3 issues in this particular case shoot way over my head. But, the GPL isn't the problem.

WP7 isn't being supported by ZTE and other bulk low-to-mid-end OEMs because of it's licensing requirements(namely, money; and the fact that WP7 hasn't moved a lot of phones).

h.264 is being cross licensed mostly due to patent AND compatibility issues. GPL isn't the core of this issue. Getting sued by the MPEG LA is.

GPL is the solution. If you want your source to be available and don't care what happens to the binary, go GPLv2. If you care about the binary and have RMS like thoughts about "Freedom" and computing go for the GPLv3. The GPL is a legal boilerplate that allows developers the freedom-as-in-freedom to have a legal backing so they can have their wishes respected when it comes to what happens to their code.

What Apple's doing is simply respecting the spirit of the GPL v3. If you really want Samba in Lion server, you can build it yourself from source in Lion after installing Xcode. If you really want Samba, you'll probably know how to do this, and if you don't, you'll probably want to know how to do this anyway.

Re:GPL is not the problem. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600040)

If Apple really wanted Samba, they could have licensed a special version under different terms....

No problem with the GPL, assuming Samba is owned by one entity of course and assuming they are willing too.

Re:GPL is not the problem. (1)

Dasuraga (1147871) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600380)

but isn't GPL the peak of licensing? I thought re-licensing was impossible under it.

Re:GPL is not the problem. (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600398)

h.264 is being cross licensed mostly due to patent AND compatibility issues. GPL isn't the core of this issue. Getting sued by the MPEG LA is.

MPEG-LA can't sue you. Individual patent holders can - they're a licensing authority - they offer a bunch of patent licenses for a set fee to everyone. You are free to implement your own h.264 stuff and not license the patents from MPEG-LA, instead opting to license the patents individually from all the patent holders. Of course, licensing that many patents is going to be difficult and there'll always be an idiot licensor that doesn't want to license to you, so most companies pay MPEG-LA to just get it over with because it's cheaper than doing it yourself.

I really wonder what the problem is though - why does Samba going GPLv3 affect OS X, especially since it included it as GPLv2 before? The only big difference is the anti-TiVoization thing, which isn't an issue since I don't think samba's a signed/encrypted binary anyhow. Or did samba also go Affero GPLv3 or one of the other alternative GPLv3 licenses?

There's got to be more to the story - what part of the GPLv3 now makes it incompatible? Was some of the Samba libraries LGPL'd before?

Re:GPL is the problem (4, Insightful)

MSG (12810) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600010)

Seriously, if you try to promote freedom and free code, you have to allow people to use it how they want.

No, sir, you are confusing liberty with "no charge" free.

The BSD license is free as in beer. A proprietary software developer may take BSD licensed software and use it as the basis for a project of their own without sharing code in return. The users of his software have less liberty to the software's use. That developer exchanges nothing of value for the code that he received.

The GPL license is free as in liberty. Developers who wish to base products on existing GPL software must agree to maintain the liberty of the derived software's users to use the software with the same liberties that the developer did. This is an exchange of something of value: the developer contributes their own code in exchange for receiving the GPL code.

GPL software is not intended to be free of charge to developers who wish to reuse it. Developers who choose the GPL software do not intend to provide their labor without charge to others who will not contribute in return. The GPL promotes liberty, not freeloading.

Re:GPL is the problem (1, Insightful)

TheGreek (2403) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600108)

The GPL license is free as in liberty. Developers who wish to base products on existing GPL software must agree to maintain the liberty of the derived software's users to use the software with the same liberties that the developer did.

If you associate the words "must agree" with the word "liberty," I think you have pretty jacked up definition of liberty.

Re:GPL is the problem (5, Informative)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600144)

No, they have the liberty to disagree. They are then subject to copyright which by default disallows them to distribute copies of the software.

There is nothing "jacked up" about this.

Re:GPL is the problem (4, Insightful)

TheGreek (2403) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600234)

There is nothing "jacked up" about this.

I fully support your right to put restrictions on how I can modify or distribute something you created. Calling these restrictions "liberty," however, is just Orwellian doublespeak.

Re:GPL is the problem (3, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600318)

I fully support your right to put restrictions on how I can modify or distribute something you created.

Apparently you don't.

Calling these restrictions "liberty," however, is just Orwellian doublespeak.

So it's "orwellian" to insist that the people who receive my software, via you, have the same rights as you did, and can use altered versions of it freely in place of the versions you gave them?

Man, you have a fucked up definition of "orwellian." Or perhaps standing up for the freedoms of others is simply antiquated to you. But then, I get the impression that control freaks don't like end-users having freedom, and thus the GPLv3 is inherently reprehensible to them.

Re:GPL is the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600386)

So by your definitional of liberty you can do whatever the hell you want to? Like going on a killing spree, because that is your liberty? Moron

Re:GPL is the problem (3, Insightful)

Rhapsody Scarlet (1139063) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600396)

If you associate the words "must agree" with the word "liberty," I think you have pretty jacked up definition of liberty.

Yeah, telling all those congressmen that they "must agree" to uphold the constitution, you'll never get liberty through coercion like that!

Re:GPL is the problem (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600140)

The GPL promotes liberty for the end user. Whereas BSD promotes liberty for the developer. Neither is more correct than the other, its just based on your feelings at the time.

Re:GPL is the problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600224)

The GPL promotes liberty, not freeloading.

It doesn't promote anything other than fear of participating.

Re:GPL is the problem (1)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600258)

He has exchanged his vision of how the software could be better. If that vision is "nothing of value" then why would you want the code to it?

Re:GPL is the problem (0)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600316)

What you don't understand and likely never will is that "liberty" means you can do as you please and nobody else is making you do it. The GPL promotes making people GPL their software. Why? I understand people could "freeload" but its not like me making something based on GPL code in any way affects the code I'm using. You say the GPL is about liberty but it has a huge "if you use this you have to do this other thing too." In what way is that liberating? If anything its enslaving. You have no option to use any other license if you use GPL without getting rid of all GPL code. That's pretty fucking restrictive. You just think its liberty because it doesn't make you do anything you personally dislike, probably because you don't write anything worth being proprietary.

Re:GPL is the problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600042)

I couldn't agree more. I'm a big open/free software fan, but GPL is about pushing a social agenda on other people. Free licenses that allow people to do whatever they please with the software, maybe only requiring attribution (if that), is the path to true free software. GPL should not be considered a free software license.

Re:GPL is the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600072)

Yes, it's free. Because you don't have to use GPL code.

Your freedom is intact. If you don't like the licensing terms of software then don't use it.

Re:GPL is the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600338)

At that point any software under any license is free. You don't HAVE to use Windows, Microsoft is not forcing you to use it on your computer. That doesn't make it freely licensed.

Re:GPL is the problem (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600122)

A major reason I avoid Microsoft software is because there there a lot of lock-in- Microsoft software tends to only work well when you are running ALL Microsoft software and gives you headaches when you try to mix Microsoft software with other software.

The GPL3 is causing the same sort of "all or none" lock-in via legal instead of technical means. It is becoming very difficult to mix GPL3 software with commercial software.

Does this really help the adoption of open source software? I don't think so. I think it will create a separate "ecosystem" of GPL3 software that (face it) the 90% of users that just use what is put in front of them will never be exposed to.

Re:GPL is the problem (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600192)

The GPL3 is causing the same sort of "all or none" lock-in via legal instead of technical means. It is becoming very difficult to mix GPL3 software with commercial software.

Only if for some reason your "mix" includes a bunch of lock down designed to trap the user and control how they use whatever the software is installed on. If anything, it's designed to bar use of GPLv3 code in systems that are architected around locking the user in.

I'm not seeing how the GPLv3 is a problem to anyone but control freak assholes. If you aren't, then it's not terribly different from the GPLv2.

Re:GPL is the problem (1)

tuffy (10202) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600168)

If Apple doesn't like the licensing terms of other peoples' code, they're free to write their own code. But that doesn't make the license bad simply because it makes Apple's life more difficult for whatever it is they want to do with it.

Re:GPL is the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600200)

The mention of GPL means this same decades old BSD vs GPL discussion comes up again and again. You may think GPL is bad, but I think it is great. Both are right depending upon what your objective is. Why don't we just make your post "Flame Bait" and supress it?

Guess what, true freedom is Somalia.

Re:GPL is the problem (0)

Kilobug (213978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600238)

No. GPL is only defending freedom. What the GPL is doing is "you're free to do anything with the code, as long as you don't take that freedom over from others". That's the definition of freedom. Freedom is not the ability to do anything, or kidnapping someone would be a freedom. The scale of offense is different, and that's what the scale of punishment for breaking the rule is different (jail if you kidnap someone, only losing the rights to use the software if you violate the GPL), but in both cases it's the same ethical stance : ability to deny to someone the freedom you were granted is not freedom, but power.

And the GPL doesn't prevent making money from the code. Unlike the article says, "GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially" is false. GPLv3 perfectly allows making money from the code. Even RMS started by selling copies of the GPLed GNU Emacs. What it doesn't allow (like the GPLv2, but with additional protections for new ways of depriving users from their freedom) is only taking freedom away from the users.

As for corporations go, they tend to *prefer* GPL than BSD, because with GPL they are likely to get something back (patches, ...) when they invest on a product and then decide to share it under a free software license. GPL license encourages sharing, while BSD license, with it's "law of the jungle" attitude, rewards the selfish (who take from the community without giving back their own pacthes).

Re:GPL is the problem (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600280)

Seriously, if you try to promote freedom and free code, you have to allow people to use it how they want. If you try to define what's allowed and try to get people to do or not to do what YOU want them, you aren't promoting free code. Your code is just as "bad" as proprietary code. True freedom is letting people do what they want, even if they have different values than you.

GPL is like promoting free speech until someone saids something YOU don't like. True freedom is letting people do what they want. That includes making money with the code, or using that code in a larger proprietary code. If you do not allow this you're a hypocrite.

Next time someone punches you in the face and takes your wallet I hope you offer them your car keys, the title to your home, and your family. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

GPL is about equality, not letting yourself be taken advantage of by corporate monsters.

The whole point is that it is software produced with the intent that it will not be used to make money. So when someone takes advantage of that and uses it to, well... make money, that is rather annoying.

It's backwards thinking and does no good to free and open source movement, as companies won't even be considering using it. GPL alone has created a large problem. It has made companies associate open source with huge legal trouble, and generally will make companies avoid open sourcing and open source code completely just because of GPL. They rather get the easier and guaranteed legally good alternative, which is licensing from other companies like MPEG-LA for H.264 and Microsoft for WP7 and so on.. Yes, it costs money. But when dealing with companies, it's a lot easier for them and solves many troubles that the hypocrites at GPL headquearters have caused for the whole open source movement. This is why I support true open source licenses that allow both free and proprietary use. They are the real free licenses, not GPL, and unless we deal with that hypocricy Microsoft will always win. I'm personally disgusted by this move by Samba team, as they're the ones that try to make it easy to both move away from Windows and integrate with other operating systems. GPL is bad.

Re:GPL is the problem (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600372)

GPL is like promoting free speech until someone saids something YOU don't like. True freedom is letting people do what they want.

The GPL requires that whoever you give the code to - in source or binary form - is just as free to use the code as you were. The way you are "more free" with the BSD is to make others less free, obviously you are more free if your right to swing your fist doesn't end at my nose. Being able to own slaves is a freedom for the slave holder. Except we don't want those kinds of freedoms, because they make others less free. BSD makes Apple more free and OS X users less free than under the GPL. The GPL may not be the absolute and total freedom, but it is the equal and fair freedom.

Re:GPL is the problem (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600412)

GPL is bad.

Of course, goes to follow. It is based on bad law. What good can come of it? It is still an appeal to an authority that should be destroyed.

Huh? (1)

jdigriz (676802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35599850)

Seems like an overreaction. Just fork the V2 version. Or maybe that's what they're doing.

Re:Huh? (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 3 years ago | (#35599878)

The downside is that they can't contribute back to the community now, removing some of the benefit of using GPL code in the first place.

Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35599892)

BS. Apple can still use it commercially. The only reason to drop it, if the GPL3 is really their problem, is so they can sue over patents they hold that cover things in Samba.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35599962)

Yeah, I'm Apple holds a lot of patents related to a Microsoft invented protocol. And if they did own those patents, they'd sue Samba instead of Microsoft. Moron.

Re:Bullshit (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600294)

Unsurprisingly Apple did sue Microsoft [wikipedia.org] . Not that it did them any good.

GPL 3 does not prevent commercial use. (5, Insightful)

MSG (12810) | more than 3 years ago | (#35599900)

GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially.

No, it doesn't. That's a ridiculous assertion presented without any evidence or reason.

As wikipedia might demand: Citation needed.

Prevents Tivoization (5, Informative)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600038)

Yeah, that was my first reaction as well. The summary is flat out wrong the way it is worded, but there are legitimate licensing issues.

The problem is with the iPhone, not OS X (yet). If you distribute binaries covered by the GPLv3 on a device, the license requires you to provide any signing keys, or other information/tools required to run modified versions of the software on the device. The iPhone requires all applications to be signed, and does not provide signing keys to it's users, thus they can't use GPLv3 software (like samba) on iOS.

They probably figure it is easier to maintain a single SMB/CIFS implementation rather than two, so they are ditching it on OS X as well (or they have other plans for OS X that we are not aware of yet).

Re:Prevents Tivoization (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600220)

The problem is with the iPhone, not OS X (yet). If you distribute binaries covered by the GPLv3 on a device, the license requires you to provide any signing keys, or other information/tools required to run modified versions of the software on the device. The iPhone requires all applications to be signed, and does not provide signing keys to it's users, thus they can't use GPLv3 software (like samba) on iOS.

Who wants to run Samba on their iPhone? I mean, a lot of people, of course. But for the mainstream user who will not jailbreak, this is not even that interesting. However, if they should expect you to run iOS on your desktop, suddenly it becomes relevant. This is just one of many preludes to the eventual death of OSX and its replacement with iOS. OSX may continue to exist as a workstation OS, but I doubt it, because who takes OSX seriously in the enterprise? It's something you have forced upon you, not something you add to your network on purpose.

Walled Garden OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600370)

The reason is Apple is moving towards DRM on OS X. You will not be able to install 3rd party software if that software is not signed.

So, summary is complete bullshit. Apple removes GPLv3 software because it conflicts with Apps-only-OSX.

Re:Prevents Tivoization (5, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600378)

The summary is flat out wrong the way it is worded, but there are legitimate licensing issues.

They probably figure it is easier to maintain a single SMB/CIFS implementation rather than two, so they are ditching it on OS X as well (or they have other plans for OS X that we are not aware of yet).

Just about all of the binaries in /System on a Mac OS X site are signed by Apple to prevent tampering, either by the user or Eve trying to installing a rootkit. They probably don't want to turn over the signing keys for those, because they definitely don't want Eve patching their system, and as far as Apple engineers are concerned /System should have a big sticker on it reading "No user serviceable parts inside."

Not specifically due to GPLv3. (5, Informative)

Jeremy Allison - Sam (8157) | more than 3 years ago | (#35599902)

Apple has been moving away from the GPL in all it's forms for a while now. They just got around to us (I'm guessing we were pretty high on the list once they got rid of gcc :-).

Jeremy.

Re:Not specifically due to GPLv3. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600288)

Apple always prefers to use the BSD license when available. This is, no doubt because of Jordan Hubbard, one of the founders of FreeBSD, who still contributes and has been the Engineering Director of UNIX systems at Apple for nearly 10 years now.

FUCK YOU STEVE JOBS !! I SAY FUCK YOU !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35599914)

Nawh, just kidding. We love you, Steve, we really, really, do. Hope your depositioning goes well - we don't want to see you repeat Mr Bill's rocking-chair antics of last century... as funny as that always is.

Could the summary be more terrible? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35599954)

The more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially

Uhhh...no it doesn't. Read the license. If you don't want to read the license, just read GNU's handy GPL FAQ, which includes a section on whether or not you can sell GPL software commercially.

I'll give you a hint: the answer is yes, you can.

That said, Apple may have perfectly legitimate reasons for not wanting to use the GPLv3, but an imaginary prohibition on commercial software isn't one of them!

Re:Could the summary be more terrible? (4, Interesting)

arivanov (12034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600236)

Kind'a. It prevents Apple using the software commercially within its business methods and business strategy.

Apple is a known "patents at dawn" company. That does not fit the GPLv3 mutual assured destruction patent clauses.

So while other companies can use GPLv3 commercially, Apple cannot do so. It will be in violation of the license the next time it tries to lob a patent nuke which is something it does on a regular basis.

Unfortunately, Apple is not alone here. Nearly all big companies are in the same position and they will follow suit. While I understand RMS aims and ideas here, that is really not the way. GPL should not be a replacement for court, legislation and enforcement.

Re:Could the summary be more terrible? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600348)

I get that, but the summary is still just plain wrong.

The GPLv3 does not prohibit commercial use, period. The GPLv3 tries to prevent patent warfare, sure. Those are really not the same thing, although businesses do combine them, as you point out.

I suspect the summary didn't say "The more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from engaging in patent warfare over GPLv3 software" because accuracy wouldn't have suited the author's bias.

Re:Could the summary be more terrible? (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600366)

within its business methods and business strategy

Necessarily, since those methods and strategy are inherently anti-freedom.

Nearly all big companies are in the same position and they will follow suit.

Indeed, it's too bad they have so much power and that they insist on locking down computing in the most restrictive ways possible. But then, there's no point to having FOSS when the end user is completely barred from taking advantage of it.

So manually install it...big deal (1)

node808 (1620443) | more than 3 years ago | (#35599968)

It is silly to move it to GPLv3 because now Apple developers will no longer contribute to samba. Otherwise, it's a non issue...just install it yourself.

Article and summary get it wrong (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600014)

"However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially. "

Nothing in the GPLv3 prohibits using the software commercially, unless that means taking software that others wrote and released and making it unfree.

As for all the posters who will say now that the GPL is too restrictive and actually has nothing to do with freedom - yes it restricts the freedom of the person distributing the software in either its original or a changed version but only exactly to the extent necessary to guarantee that the person who receives the software gets the same extent of freedom as the original software allowed. The freedom to take other people's freedom away is certainly some kind of freedom, but probably not the kind that the creators of Samba wanted to promote.

It is actually an intended consequence of the GPL to keep companies that want to distribute software in a restricted way (e.g. on "locked" phones where they control what you can install, and probably soon enough on "locked computers" under the pretense of security) from doing this with GPLed software. That Apple cannot use the software for such purposes puts free software and hardware at an advantage and increases the cost for Apple of taking away people's freedom.
Presumably, the developers that put their code under the GPL wanted exactly that.

Closed ecosystem (3, Insightful)

woboyle (1044168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600058)

Personally, I think Apple is trying to totally close their software and hardware ecosystems so only they can provide software, or are the gatekeeper of all software, that will run on any Apple device. The only way to stop this is by voting with our pocketbooks! After this sort of behavior, I am boycotting Apple products like I am Sony's. If I purchase something, I own it and therefor have the right to use it as I see fit, not as someone else does. The way Apple wants it to work is that you are in effect leasing from them. You don't own it, and are constrained with what you can do with/to it.

Re:Closed ecosystem (0)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600250)

Woohoo. Stick it to the man, bro!

Re:Closed ecosystem (5, Insightful)

gbrandt (113294) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600310)

Doubtful. If that was the case then GCC would not have been replaced with Clang and LLVM. And Apple would not have put LLDB into the open source domain.

Apple just does not like the GPL, but they have no problem with the BSD-style licensing.

Gregor.

Re:Closed ecosystem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600346)

Why did you have to say something irrelevant? Is a user now prohibited from installing Samba on their own?

Re:Closed ecosystem (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600368)

Well said

What does this mean for users? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600102)

A new set of SAMBA tools. Who knows?

For all their PR about how easy it is to connect Mac & Windows, that has always been (on many different machines and networks) one of the sketchiest OS X features in my experience. From Jaguar days, when a Mac that went to sleep had to be rebooted to ever reconnect to a Windows share it happily saw before, to (Snow) Leopard when they simply won't connect at all most of the time, at home or at work, even with an IP address, it's been the same hell of workarounds that didn't work. I'd be more than happy to stop carrying USB drives around.

GPLv3 doesn't prohibit commercial use, does it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600246)

Summary says "GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially" but I don't understand that at all. My understanding was that the GPL does not prohibit commercial use. Can someone explain why GPLv3 would prevent Apple from using code commercially?

Man, I remember when the GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600304)

was about code reciprocity. Must be getting old now.

Apple Remove Samba From OS X 10.7 Because of GPLv3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600312)

Michael J. Fox Remove Samba From OS X 10.7 Because of Parkinsons

Incorrect summary (3, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600344)

However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially.

That should be: However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially in the way they want to use it.

On the iPhone and iPad, Apple wants the device itself to be closed, which means the user is not allowed to install operating system components. Samba is an operating system component. If Apple allowed the end user to replace it, then jailbreaking would be as easy as replacing Samba with a hacked version, then using Samba from within any application. On MacOS X, no problem; you may replace Samba as much as you like; if it doesn't work, it's your problem obviously.

So on iDevices, Apple cannot use GPL v3 code commercially _the way they want to use it_. So they can't use it. At that point it's obviously better to have one code base and replace it on MacOS X as well.

This is getting silly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35600352)

It looks like Apple and the Linux app groups are trying to be more restrictive than Microsoft. (OK, Apple already is,) Pretty soon we'll be back to typewriters and adding machines etc. because you won't be able to turn on a switch without violating some clown's preciousssss IP.

Has previously? (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 3 years ago | (#35600364)

What the hell is 'has previously'?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?