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!

Jeremy Allison Talks Samba and GPLv3

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the early-adopters dept.

GNU is Not Unix 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."

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

Nothing for you to see here. Move along. (3, Funny)

wanderingknight (1103573) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845067)

Repost.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Move along. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19845117)

I can't believe the douchebag mods moderated you down!

dupe (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19845079)

dupe

Awesome (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19845093)

I thought this was barely newsworthy the first time they posted it, good thing they posted it again.

Re:Awesome (3, Interesting)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845149)

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 (3, Funny)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845381)

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 ....)

Didn't we just discuss this? (2, Informative)

GizmoToy (450886) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845095)

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

Samba Adopts GPLv3 For Future Releases [slashdot.org]

Re:Didn't we just discuss this? (0, Redundant)

strredwolf (532) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845107)

We did. DUPE!

Re:Didn't we just discuss this? (1)

evanbd (210358) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845185)

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

Re:Didn't we just discuss this? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845297)

certain tags are banned because they were overused. gay, dupe, and bonkthezonk, for example.

Re:Didn't we just discuss this? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845283)

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

Strange (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19845097)

Why would you want Samba, software that combines an operating system that doesn't have drivers (Linux) with one that has no security (Windows) ?

in other news... (2, Funny)

RelliK (4466) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845161)

slashdot stops posting dupes. No wait...

Re:in other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19846681)

I honestly don't understand how the editors can fail so hard. Apart from the fact you'd think they'd remember what had just been on their front page when we have no difficulty doing so, they apparently have a script that compares tags / body text of submissions with previous ones. "Samba" and "GPL3" would surely have pulled out the previous story in this case. The only explanation that I can see is that they sometimes just hit approve without even really reading it, which would also explain the not infrequent errors and spelling mistakes.

NewsFlash! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19845163)

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!

Linus is right (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19845175)

I am with Linus on this one. Linus has made the most persuasive argument against GPL v3.
Since he is the most important contributtor to open source his opinion needs to be respected.
RMS has to be stopped

Re:Linus is right (2, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845179)

I agree with you.

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

Re:Linus is right (2, Insightful)

Richard Steiner (1585) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845221)

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

Re:Linus is right (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19845341)

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:Linus is right (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845357)

Exactly.

Re:Linus is right (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845893)

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

Re:Linus is right (1)

cortana (588495) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846611)

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:Linus is right (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845237)

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:Linus is right (-1, Flamebait)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845315)

English comprehension isn't your forte eh?

I said:

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 people that don't like RMS shouldn't use any GPL software?
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?

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

Re:Linus is right (2, Funny)

rustalot42684 (1055008) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845527)

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

Re:Linus is right (2, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845863)

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 who wrote this document was trying to say". RMS wrote the document. He defines the spirit. The FSF represent his message.. they get their mandate from him. So for Linus to say that he understands the spirit of the GPLv2 better than they do is just obnoxious.

As for the comment about drinking the kool-aid, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You wanna talk about confusing? How confusing is it for you to choose the GPL, a Free Software license, when you just don't believe in the Free Software philosophy? If you don't wanna drink the kool-aid, and yet you still wanna use their license, don't get confused when people who have drunk the kool-aid wonder why you don't care about the same things they care about. Choosing the GPL for your project should be a message that you *have* drunk the kool-aid.

Otherwise, take off the t-shirt already.

Re:Linus is right (1)

cHiphead (17854) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846303)

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 slashdot mouth flappers like myself.

Cheers. Did I win?

Re:Linus is right (3, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846315)

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:Linus is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19847287)

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

Well that's true isn't it? The FSF are the ones who suddenly find they have to draw up a new version.

Re:Linus is right (3, Interesting)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847535)

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

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

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

Re:Linus is right (5, Informative)

wrook (134116) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845667)

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:Linus is right (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845745)

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 subscribe to the faith, he just wants to benefit off the gospel.

Re:Linus is right (4, Insightful)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845843)

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:Linus is right (0, Flamebait)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845879)

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
Worst summary of Free Software philosophy, ever.

Re:Linus is right (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846687)

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:Linus is right (1)

cching (179312) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845875)

But that's some nice selective quoting
So tell us what was wrong with his quotes. I read the link and what he quoted seemed in the spirit of what the link said.

Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did.
Can't really argue with that.

Re:Linus is right (1)

bytesex (112972) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846887)

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 share alike' for what I (and others) make, and proprietary software is Ok. Those two views _can_ be combined, and they still _do_ allow you to use the GPL for what you've wrought.

Re:Linus is right (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845899)

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 Linus--"knowing what you know now, if you had the choice to do it all over again, would you pick the GPL 15 years ago?" (or however long it was).

Nobody wants to do things they don't believe in, but the unfortunate reality is that precious few of us have the ability to make all those stands. From this thread and what I've read elsewhere, Linus seems cool with the GPLv2. Doesn't mean he has to like the people behind it, doesn't mean he has to like v3.

Re:Linus is right (1)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845275)

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

Write that into the license

Poster full of it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19845433)

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

I support BSD, so what am I suppose to be upset about again?

Re:Poster full of it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19846251)

slashdot-post.c: In function 'main':
slashdot-post.c:5: error: expected ',' or ';' before 'open'

Re:Linus is right (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846579)

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 (3, Funny)

Miguel de Icaza (660439) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845243)

I am with Linus on this one. Linus has made the most persuasive argument against GPL v3.
Since he is the most important contributtor to open source his opinion needs to be respected.
RMS has to be stopped

Not everyone involved in opensource can express their opinions freely. Many are employed by companies with strict PR policy and enforcement. When Jeremy Allison resigned from Novell, the fact of his resignation was known by the public for some weeks before his last official day as a Novell employee. Jeremy had to refrain from doing or saying certain things until he was actually off the payroll, so it is good to hear him able to talk freely now. On switching to the gpl3 so soon I'm not sure this isn't too soon. The fact remains it took over a decade to find exploitable weaknesses in the gpl2 (although the gpl2 had patent provisions they were not specific enough to US and international recent software patent law). Today there are many IP lawyers studying the gpl3 for weaknesses, I very much doubt it will take a decade - and when Novell find those loopholes - there will be no one to stop them this time.

Re:Linus is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19845465)

Miguel, my impression of Novells' executives actions and statements is that the M$ deal was all about greed and fear. Now Novells brightest leaders Jeremy Allison and Hubert Mantel have jumped ship to google, what about Novell's remaining greats such as Nat Friedman?

Re:Linus is right (0, Troll)

Miguel de Icaza (660439) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845537)

Hubert Mantel is a public hero, be in no doubt. But please don't use M$ in a serious context, I don't appreciate it. Sadly Novell is still using Nat Friedman, as the public apologist for the patent agreement. His arguments are untenable and I think his ethical position stinks. Jeremy Allison's GPL v3 announcements (which I applaud), should reinforce this. Nat should resign too.

Re:Linus is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19845615)

But please don't use M$ in a serious context, I don't appreciate it.

Without the quotes I think you intended, that sentence is hilarious.

Re:Linus is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19845655)

Whoosh (If thats all you found funny in this thread)

Re:Linus is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19845759)

Thank you. The contributions of illiterates are always welcome here at Slashdot.

Re:Linus is right (1)

cching (179312) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845923)

On switching to the gpl3 so soon I'm not sure this isn't too soon. The fact remains it took over a decade to find exploitable weaknesses in the gpl2
I don't know, seems to me it's better to get those concerns aired earlier rather than later. And what better project to get that tested than something as vital as samba? I applaud Samba's initiative. I remember a time when there was genuine concern that the GPL hadn't been tested in court, I'd like to get those concerns dealt with sooner rather than later. I mean, the idea is to get a good, solid license that *does* hold up in court, yeah?

Re:Linus is right (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846721)

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 Microsoft spent on it, I expect to see at least a few major holes show up and allow this kind of access.

Re:Linus is right (3, Informative)

Jeremy Allison - Sam (8157) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846005)

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

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

Jeremy.

Re:Linus is right (2, Informative)

Taagehornet (984739) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847293)

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

Re:Linus is right (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846751)

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:Linus is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19847011)

Nice troll, lot's of bite's

Dupes make me.... (1)

gustolove (1029402) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845189)

... feel like I don't need to read slashdot but once a week. If they are going to have the same damn stories every day!

You could be an editor... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19845199)

If you were able to cut it down to not reading Slashdot at all.

Implications for commercial companies? (0)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845343)

Just curious what sort of implications this will have on companies, such as Apple, who use Samba in their commercial software? Is anything that Apple doing now with Samba rendered incompatible, license wise?

Re:Implications for commercial companies? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845369)

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

RTFA.

Typo (2, Funny)

ImaLamer (260199) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845407)

LTFA

Re:Typo (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845825)

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

Re:Implications for commercial companies? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845813)

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:Implications for commercial companies? (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846359)

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:Implications for commercial companies? (1, Troll)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845913)

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 license I don't agree with I just supposed I should pick the one that requires less work for me.

This is something people are going to have to accept. The adoption rate will change because of this. People already using windows won't care and use windows, people who disagree with the GPLv3 will probably do the same (use windows_ms products). And to be frank, I don't think it is the actual terms of the GPLv3 that I am in disagreement with, it is all the perpetual loss of any right you might think you had that is falsely being perpetuated by people who don't understand the GPL. And yes, these are the vocal people claiming it is going to ruin Novell and Microsoft. I don't like the idea of the GPLv3 controlling hardware now but I don't think that is as much a stopper for me as the misconceptions over the license being thrown around.

Re:Implications for commercial companies? (2, Informative)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846077)

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

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

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

Re:Implications for commercial companies? (4, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846343)

I actually read the GPL - all versions. The spirit of the GPL hasn't changed. It has always said: If you are a team player, then donate your code modifications back for the greater good and ensure that your users have all the rights that you have. If you are not a team player, then go away, do your own thing and leave us alone.
well, the GPLv3 goes a little further. And some, including me question the realm of the spirit it is in. I get moded down every time I post something to that effect, I find it interesting that people would rather hide the idea then discuss the legitimacy of it.

Unfortunately, as the GPL code corpus grew, various commercial leaches sensed an opportunity to profit off other people's charity. For example Tivo and lately Microsoft. The GPL V3 changed the wording to make it abundantly clear that leaches will not be tolerated and that all users have equal rights. Some users cannot be more equal than others. If you don't want to play, then go away. We don't need you, you need us.
I'm not sure what your talking about when you mention Microsoft. Unless your trying to say that the vast jump in approachs to distributing that the GPLv3 took in the attempt to lock someone into it's clutches by mere advocating it (as I read on Groaklaw). I don't think that was ever the intent of the GPLv2, the intent there was to regulate people who distribute it.

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

Nothing changed. That has always been the intent of the GPL:
"Copyleft, most rights reversed."
If you honestly believe this, I think you didn't understand the GPL in the first place. The intent has always be so that the code remains free and that you can change it if necessary. Not to control hardware and make sure you can run your own stuff on the hardware which is something that has always been explicitly held outside the scope of the license.

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

Re:Implications for commercial companies? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19846659)

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

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

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

Re:Implications for commercial companies? (2, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846895)

What end users actually do with the program has always been outside the scope of the license. The GPLv3 did not change that. What Tivo is doing, however, is restricting end users from using a modified version of the program. That has always been against the license, also with the GPLv2, but has been made very clear in the GPLv3 that hardware tricks is no exception to the rule.
no, what Tivo is doing is restricting end users from using a modified version of the program on the appliance computer hardware they sold. There is a difference. You are able to use the software, just not on the hardware they provided. And I don't see an issue with this. The manufacturer doesn't have to open everything up so you can hack around with their products. And they shouldn't have to. You bought an appliance not a computer. Because it can do the other doesn't mean it has to.

What happened is: Preventing end users from running a modified version has always been against the GPL. Tivo found a loop-hole, that allowed them to do it anyway. Or at least their lawyers thought so, and the FSF apparently thought that a judge might agree with Tivo that there actually was a hole. So they set out to fix the hole.
It wasn't a loophole at all. It was there by design. The GPLv2 and earlier said explicitly that anything outside the act of modifying/distributing was outside the license. Of course Tivo gave the code back, you could modify it and run it on other devices, you could change it or add parts of it to other programs. You could even build a Tivo like device and run it on that. The only thing they stopped you from doing was turning their appliance into another appliance that they never intended it to be.

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

Re:Implications for commercial companies? (1)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847405)

The manufacturer doesn't have to open everything up so you can hack around with their products. And they shouldn't have to. You bought an appliance not a computer. Because it can do the other doesn't mean it has to.

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.

It wasn't a loophole at all. It was there by design. The GPLv2 and earlier said explicitly that anything outside the act of modifying/distributing was outside the license. Of course Tivo gave the code back, you could modify it and run it on other devices, you could change it or add parts of it to other programs. You could even build a Tivo like device and run it on that. The only thing they stopped you from doing was turning their appliance into another appliance that they never intended it to be. But the Tivo part is only the start. They went too far and it would appear that they didn't even do that very well. You see, the GPLv3 doesn't even stop Tivo from doing the same stuff. They can still disable the device if their special version of software isn't running.

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

*Clearly copyright doesn't allow this, since using/running is outside the scope of copyright. But anyone who would manufacturer an item and sell it is distributing, so that's adequately sufficient for the wide-scale issue. The fact that a person might personally make a machine and do things alone with our code is fine. We'll never have access to the machine, anyways.

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

Re:Implications for commercial companies? (4, Insightful)

Alphager (957739) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846865)

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

Re:Implications for commercial companies? (1)

DuncanE (35734) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847453)

"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:Implications for commercial companies? (1)

bWareiWare.co.uk (660144) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847153)

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 it under any terms.

It may not be a step forward but it hardly makes Microsoft an attractive alternative.

Transcript? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19845535)

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

Re:Transcript? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19845609)

JEREMY ALLISON IS A KNOWN FAGGOT.

GPLv3 IS WORTHLESS

FUCK RMS

qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq

Re:Transcript? (1)

Jeremy Allison - Sam (8157) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846081)

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.

Re:Transcript? (1)

dmarti (6587) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846415)

d00d, trolling is a business model now [linuxworld.com] . It's turned all commercial and stuff just like virus writing. It used to be trolls were just out to show you a gross-out picture or something, just like virus writers were out to trash your hard drive. Now trolling drives the monetizable web 2.0 eyeball traffic, or something like that. And all the gifted amateur trolls have gone pro.

Re:Transcript? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19846823)

Uh, yuo mean "Klerck".
Agreed, in any case. RIP (RideTheSpoke In Peace.)

Mod parent up (1)

bcat24 (914105) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845729)

I would also like to see a transcript.

Re:Mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19845937)

Mod your parent up for what? Did he post the transcript? He's just bitchin' for one.

Transcript in progress. Will be up soon. (3, Informative)

dmarti (6587) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846385)

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? (4, Funny)

niceone (992278) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846323)

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

Dear /. - there are other operating systems! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19845651)

The software that enables Linux to act as a Windows file and print server is adopting the Free Software Foundation's new license.

And here all this time I thought Samba supported several platforms. *checks address in browser* oh slashdot! that explains it.

Worng person to ask about licences (0, Troll)

dbIII (701233) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845671)

Now Mr Allison has done very good things with samba, rsync and many other things but after the bitkeeper fiasco is he really the one to talk to about complying with software licences? Arguing that it doesn't count because it is was a terrible licence or that his employer was bound by it but somehow not him is pointless. It's better to state outright that you do not intend to comply for reason X and then either not use the software or take the consequences (he took the consequences in that case).

Re:Worng person to ask about licences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19845723)

So are you saying it should be illegal to reverse engineer proprietary software? On the one hand you praise him for reverse engineering Microsoft software, and on the other hand you condemn him for reverse engineering bitkeeper. So which is it? Pick a side. We're at war!

Re:Worng person to ask about licences (2, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845747)

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:Worng person to ask about licences (3, Informative)

Jeremy Allison - Sam (8157) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845851)

Wrong person full stop. :-)

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

Jeremy.

Re:Worng person to ask about licences (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845895)

Whoops - sorry about that and many apologies.

Re:Worng person to ask about licences (1)

pchan- (118053) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846753)

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:Worng person to ask about licences (3, Informative)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845985)

  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:Worng person to ask about licences (2, Informative)

dbIII (701233) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846155)

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

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

Re:Worng person to ask about licences (1)

byolinux (535260) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846537)

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:Worng person to ask about licences (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847029)

(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:Worng person to ask about licences (1)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847485)

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 accepted it.

End Users (1)

ynososiduts (1064782) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845807)

Do people that use software, really pay attention to licenses? I mean, we as geeks do, but we are not the garden variety user. If you give Ubuntu to grandma she wont notice the transition from GPLv2 to GPLv3. The only people this really effects is developers.

Re:End Users (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845927)

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:End Users (1)

ynososiduts (1064782) | more than 7 years ago | (#19845997)

Yeah I didn't think that through. Grandma wouldn't be using samba, ever. It's not something for the lay person.

Re:End Users (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846619)

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 with people who haven't drunk the Windows 2003 or Windows NT "managed server" Kool-Aid, they've lept on and been happy with the performance of Samba servers, even in arrays well over 10 Terabytes.

Re:End Users (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846849)

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 either if you know what your doing. The first step is not to depend on the server in question to do the security itself. And outside firewall should be the minimum in addition to locking down the server. And of course, I would recommend this for any linux server too unless the server is setup specifically for being on the Internet and doesn't hold any sensitive information on it.

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 with people who haven't drunk the Windows 2003 or Windows NT "managed server" Kool-Aid, they've lept on and been happy with the performance of Samba servers, even in arrays well over 10 Terabytes.
If you need NFS maybe, I'm not so sure about the claims for FTP or HTTPS. But I don't need them either so it isn't a point I want to press.

As for the Kool-Aid, we all drink it to some extent. It may not have the same results but your happily pushing the Samba with some claims that don't really need to be made. I think almost everyone is biased to some extent, However, the reasons for my bias has disappeared. And I wouldn't be surprised of it hasn't gone away for others too. The more the GPLv3 comes around the more people that will be in the same boat as me.

Now, don't get me wrong. I was happy with Samba. I'm not saying t is a dog or anything. It is harder to get working correctly then the windows servers and it isn't any easier at securing either. There just wasn't that much over using windows that Samba had to offer that I would use. I know others are in the same situation as me too. The little comment about the NAS devices is probably going to go away now too. The NAS devices fit into the consumer definition of the GPLv3 and aren't exempt form the tampering and such like the business devices might be. So, there won't be any way to secure them that can't be hacked easily. Any encryption on the drives will need to have the keys distributed- it is going to just cause issues. We won't use a portable device that I cannot completely lock everyone out of. We cannot afford someone taking it home and installing some back door program that allows them perpetual access to it. And you can't buy a device already locked down sufficiently from someone under the GPLv3.

But that's ok. I'm sure it was all considered before the switch was made. I know GPLed stuff is just for hackers and hobbyist. I don't know why we thought it was ready to compete in a commercial world when that was never the intention. I just wish I would stop hearing about the year of linux every year. It is misleading.

Re:End Users (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847109)

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 looked at the infrastructure of the Internet itself. Google just hired Jeremy Allison, one of the key maintainers and developers of Samba. Many of your home network routers and firewalls are Linux kernel and glibc based, which means they are using GPL licensed software. Render farms and computing clusters also make extensive use of Linux, the OS, with all its GPL components.

I'm not saying it's "the year of Linux". But large and successful companies, like Google and IBM, are using it heavily and pursing it avidly, and publishing their software changes.

Listen to the article?? (2, Funny)

valentyn (248783) | more than 7 years ago | (#19846083)

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 (2, Interesting)

Random BedHead Ed (602081) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847135)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?