Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat releases Netscape Directory Server to OSS
parry writes "Red Hat has released the Netscape Directory server acquired from Netscape Security Solutions under a "GPL + Exception" license. The Fedora Directory Server is made up of a number of different pieces of software, each with their own licensing. "
Please reread both articles. The first announces that Red Hat will be opening Netscape Directory, the second actually points directly to the openned code which wasn't available at first. So if it is a dupe, it's a very useful one!
Worth pointing out, the exception is an extra freedom not a less-freedom (which of course would make it not GPL).
I'm not too clear on GPL vs LGPL but the extra "you can link this from non GPL...." sounds like a cross between the two.
The Exception is explained here
It states:
GPL Exception License Text
From Fedora Directory Server
This is the text of the Licensed used in the Core of the Directory Server code. For more of an explaination, please see the annotated license text for a more in-depth description.
This Program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; version 2 of the License.
This Program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this Program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA.
LC:here it comes
In addition, as a special exception, Red Hat, Inc. gives You the additional right to link the code of this Program with code not covered under the GNU General Public License ("Non-GPL Code") and to distribute linked combinations including the two, subject to the limitations in this paragraph. Non-GPL Code permitted under this exception must only link to the code of this Program through those well defined interfaces identified in the file named EXCEPTION found in the source code files (the "Approved Interfaces"). The files of Non-GPL Code may instantiate templates or use macros or inline functions from the Approved Interfaces without causing the resulting work to be covered by the GNU General Public License. Only Red Hat, Inc. may make changes or additions to the list of Approved Interfaces. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the Program code and other code used in conjunction with the Program except the Non-GPL Code covered by this exception. If you modify this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the file, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to provide this exception without modification, you must delete this exception statement from your version and license this file solely under the GPL without exception.
I will let others decide on its evilness factor.
liqbase
Finally ! this is the only Open Source Directory that can compare to the features that Active Directory has to offer, especially multi-master replication.
:)
Unfortunately, this will probably mean OpenLDAP will fade into insignificance, but I may be wrong !
This is the 'stronger rope' I needed to hang the guys planning on making Linux authentication depend on MS AD where I work
-- Ravi
Depends on your point of view. I've quoted the "exception" below. It allows developers to distribute versions that are linked to non-GPL code as long as those links use approved interfaces. Developers who modify the GPL code are not required to continue the exception in the code they release. I'd put it in the decidedly non-evil camp, but GPL hardliners may view it as evil.
In addition, as a special exception, Red Hat, Inc. gives You the additional right to link the code of this Program with code not covered under the GNU General Public License ("Non-GPL Code") and to distribute linked combinations including the two, subject to the limitations in this paragraph. Non-GPL Code permitted under this exception must only link to the code of this Program through those well defined interfaces identified in the file named EXCEPTION found in the source code files (the "Approved Interfaces"). The files of Non-GPL Code may instantiate templates or use macros or inline functions from the Approved Interfaces without causing the resulting work to be covered by the GNU General Public License. Only Red Hat, Inc. may make changes or additions to the list of Approved Interfaces. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the Program code and other code used in conjunction with the Program except the Non-GPL Code covered by this exception. If you modify this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the file, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to provide this exception without modification, you must delete this exception statement from your version and license this file solely under the GPL without exception.
Seems that it's stricter than the LGPL. The LGPL (as far as I remember) doesn't specify anything about approved interfaces, although it does require that it is possible to replace the library (dynamic linking or re-linking), but even this doesn't say anything about e.g. not touching deeply internal structures inside the library. As long as these internal structures are still accessable, it will still be possible to replace the library. This license does not allow that.
Well... at least the core is Open. Maybe they have to write replacements for encumberered components (perhaps the Sun iPlanet parts??).
We chose to use a GPL+Exception license for a few very specific reason:
1. We wanted something that was GPL-compatible.
2. We wanted people to be able to ship it with non-free software.
Directory Server has been shipped for a long time as the backend for lots of other apps, like all the old Netscape Suite apps like mail server. We thought this was a valuable form of delivery and wanted people to be able to continue to do this.
3. We wanted people to be able to build plugins for the Directory Server under non-free licenses.
We thought that the ability to build plugins with any software was an important right to grant.
4. We wanted to make sure the core of the Directory Server was maintained as free software.
This was the most important goal. If someone extends some piece of core functionality in the Directory Server they need to give it back to the community. We didn't want forks that included proprietary software right in the core of the directory server.
Is there a side by side comparison of Network Information Service (Sun Yellow Pages), Open LDAP and Netscape Directory anywhere?
NIS != LDAP
Just to clarify, NIS and LDAP really have no real point of comparission.
I mean yeah, you can use them both as authentication/authorization backend for pam, but then again, so can postgres.
NIS is a way to distribute some key file in an asyncronous way across a network. It works kinda nice when youve a full host of unixes and you need one authentication database for them all.
Let me put it this way, although its a flawed analogy:
NIS is to LDAP what Windows Network authentication services are to Active Directory.
NO SIG