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!
So what? You'll tell your boss "Sorry, I f-ed up because /. duped" ?
:)
In that case I don't see a reason to work at all anymore
The article last week was a press release type article. Lots of fluff, no content. Now we're getting the content. So it's not really a dupe. More of a late update.
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he'll wipe out the species.
anyone care to examine the license - "GPL with Exception" - and give us an Evil / Not Evil summary?
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
It was originaly closed-source, so, er, it's replacing itself.
Microsoft's Active Directory and propietary directory servers for $BIG UNIXES. Red Hat plays in the "Big server" market so this is a mejor milestone for them - and for linux in the enterprise. Lots of netscape directory's customers will want to switch to redhat too.
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.
An easy to use Directory Service that:
* childsplay to install
* hides the LDAP schema from admins that don't need to know
* a GUI / web console to add, delete, alter LDAP attributes
* easy integration into the O/S with a few file changes: PAM modules
* is easier to get going than OpenLDAP
I hope that the new Fedora project will do something like this, I saw the admin toolkit but no source is available yet, only binary packages - since I run gentoo i'll wait... Might be interesting!
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.
If you prefer to have an LDAP server under in the public domain then go and code one yourself. Did you pay ANYTHING to redhat to release their LDAP server? No? Then shut the fuck up and either use it or don't. But don't complain about things which others give away for free. As long as you neither contribute to the code nor pay anything to get it under another license NOBODY will care about your opinion of the GPL.
For most Open Source developers the easiest thing to do is to just use the software under the GPL.
However, if you use the software as a library, and only make use of the specific APIs that Red Hat has listed, then it effectively becomes like the LGPL. You are not obliged to release your code under the GPL.
But unlike the LGPL, the set of allowed APIs is fixed, and defined by Red Hat. In a LGPL program you can open up new APIs and change existing APIs and as long as you release your changes to the library, you don't need to GPL your program. With the NS Directory Server, you can change the APIs all you want, but the new APIs you create can only be used under the GPL - i.e. you have to release your program under the GPL too.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.
they are stuck and are forced to have their code infected by this heavily viral licence.
;)
Well, redhat is allowing you to use freely and for free a product that costs several millons of dollars. You should THANK them that they give you this possibility, if you don't like it don't use it or just shut up. If you are doing money from the product redhat opensourced but you don't want to give them back anything...well, I wouldn't really like to be your friend
Not a dupe, its actually released now.
It'll be great to see the benchmarks to settle this;
SunONE
IBM's ldap thingy
OpenLDAP
Novell's eDirectory
maybe even AD for kicks.
Also, just a note, redhat's docs are actually pretty good. Even the web pages ~2500 word Architecture docs probably outweight the usefulness of everything else available on the web. One of the most frequenty Directory Service gripes is how bad the docs are; finding out how to build a good DS system is pretty much a black art. Part fo the reason OpenLDAP is so unacceptable as a solution is because you're at the mercy of whatever tools you can find; docs are MIA. RedHat's already done a decent job of making them accessible, which is good because I might need them to make this thing compile on Debian.
Way to go red-hat. Everytime red hat shows up on campus I always spend five-ten minutes asking about the Netscape DS. Thanks for the release; here's to long life.
Myren
Well... at least the core is Open. Maybe they have to write replacements for encumberered components (perhaps the Sun iPlanet parts??).
Well, it does multimaster replication - openldap syncrepl is pretty orthogonal to that, you could syncrepl a local directory on your laptop (and have disconnected read-only operation when you're away from the corporate network) to a multimastered high-availability server farm, if you had a package that had both (i.e. some future parallel-universe merge of the two source trees :-) )
Also, as computer scientists have known for many years, hierarchy where there is no natural hierarchy is evil - netscape allows you to have a pretty flat database underneath and use "Virtual Views" to build up appropriate domain-specific hierarchies for different purposes, and maintain performance. It thus allows for LDAP directories that are less of a mess than is traditional, though I'd really like to see a LRAP (lighweight relational access protocol) that didn't have ODBC's intrinsic SQL-specifity and securability problems.
On the other hand, in my experience, recent openldap has much better schema validation than netscape server had when I last used it (yes, years ago openldap had very weak schema validation, that changed). Also,the use of openldap in linux distros has meant it's really been hammered hard on the security front, and is now rather secure.
Our time is better suited at DOING THINGS rather than reading yet another useless, boring license.
Let the legalese geeks do their thing.
I have a small network of Linux and Mac machines and would really like to set up one address book that is accessible to all my machines and all my accounts under both Thunderbird and Mac Mail.
Would this be useful for this application or is it overkill? What are the other alternatives, I played with openldap using something called abook once and it was unusable.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
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