Slashdot Mirror
Samba Adopts GPLv3 For Future Releases
Jeremy Allison - Sam writes with news that the Samba Team has decided to adopt the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 licenses for all future releases of Samba. Follow the link for a FAQ addressed to Samba developers and contributors. "To allow people to distinguish which Samba version is released with the new GPLv3 license, we are updating our next version release number. The next planned version release was to be 3.0.26, this will now be renumbered so the GPLv3 version release will be 3.2.0. To be clear, all versions of Samba numbered 3.2 and later will be under the GPLv3, all versions of Samba numbered 3.0.x and before remain under the GPLv2."
Indeed. A lot of projects are going to be switching to GPLv3 from GPLv2 in the coming weeks and months, are we going to get an article for each one of these projects that change their status? Why is this news?
the
*.2.* indicates GPLv3
*.0.* indicates GPLv2
So, to easily remember this kids 2 equals 3 and 0 equals 2.
All set now?
Yep, Samba is a major project.
But more to the point, LOTS of vendors re-package Samba and sell it as NAS's and such.
Thank you sir! Hopefully many more projects will follow your lead.
So doesn't this mean that smbfs is now dead? Or stuck at 3.0.x? Since the Linux kernel will not be going GPLv3, from my understanding of what Linus has said.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
They are already boosting it by a non integral value, 3.0->3.2 does not appear to be intuitively obvious to the casual observer, why not aim for a mnemonic association with 3.3.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
What a relief! These past few nights I have been unable to sleep as I pondered which versions of what software should adopt the new GPL (which is really sweet BTW you should check it out, it has awesome graphics). I can rest a little easier now knowing that they are moving to GPLv3.
After all, its the morally correct thing to do.
There was a lot of doomsaying as to how the GPL V 3 would never be adopted, most unexpectedly by Linus, and also by the normal suspects in spreading FUD. It is good to see that
the FSF and Stallman have finally addressed patent issues and prevented tivoization. As a major project like Samba has adopted this, many other projects will probably also follow suit. It becomes harder and harder to stay GPL v 2 if the entire body of software is V3. Linus may have stated that the kernel won't have V3, but increasingly that will lead to the kernel being unable to incorporate the latest patches from others.
When will 3.2 be released, and when will Novell include it in SUSE?
So whats 69 equal to?
Are you saying they can only use those version numbers during the summer? What numbers should they use in the winter?
Some (all?) of the samba libraries are also released under the LGPL, which can be linked against software using whatever license you want. I'm not certain, but I think that this includes all of the libraries used by smbfs.
The FAQ in the article is actually in error - you do not need to license your code as "GPLv2 or latter" to link against LGPLv3, just to link against GPLv3.
What of the projects on Google Code? Last I checked, I could select "GPL" as an advertised license, not "GPL 2" or "GPL 3".
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
So, by this logic the Dev version, 3.1, would be GPLv2.
They really should've made the dev version 3.3 and the stable 3.4. It only makes sense.
Using 3.2 for a GPL3 release is the same kind of shit that Sun would pull to confuse us about which version of JACRONYM we are using, or which version of Solaris/Sun OS we're running.
I'm not trying to be snippish or anything. But are there any vendors that you know of that do have such?
Particularly with the new Samba on the horizon.
What does changing to v3 do to companies that use Samba and closed source software?
Example: Apple's preference panel. It is used to control Samba but is closed source.
>Now it's just a bunch of faux-lawyers gumming up the works
There *are* some real lawyers gumming up the works as well.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Only the owner of the code is allowed to assign the license and people made submissions to Linux under the GPL2-flavored license. Linus has no authority to release all the Linux code under a new license since he only owns a small percentage of the code. There have been thousands of people submitting to Linus under the GPL2-flavored license and it is impractical, if not impossible, to track those submittors down and secure a GPL3 agreement from them.
Sure, Linux could adopt the SMB strategy of committing to make future release of Linux GPL3 (eg, say Linux 3.0). Then all submissions into that new version would have to be GPL3. Practically though, many of the big players in Linux might prefer GPL2 over GPL3 and that could force a fork.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
That's called the BSD license.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.ph
The troll with karma.
People continue to avoid the GPL in favor of BSD and other types of code just like before. Nothing has changed, the GPL world is still cut off from everything else by ideology, GPL3 cits off even more in fact. Nothing to see except a 3-ring circus, move along.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
42, obviously.
No, thats called Public Domain.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
42 is 69 written in base 16.75.
I thought law was all about exacting language, and that seems pretty vague to me - who knows what future versions will hold?
I also assume the definition of who can create any such "future version" is well defined as well, right?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Heh heh, 73% *GPL to 6% BSD*. I believe one of the main reasons for this is because when you use the BSD license you are doomed from the start. If you start a project with a BSD license then someone like Microsoft can come along and take a copy of the code, close their copy of the code, modify it slightly so it doesn't work with the original code, then make their copy the defacto standard because they have the monopoly numbers. The original project becomes obsolete and disappears into oblivion (or at least drops off the list at freshmeat). This can't happen with the GPL and it's probably why "most" programmers prefer it.
The only problem with freshmeat is that they're not the only software repository. Playing the "my license can beat up your license" games based upon those stats would be foolish.
BTW don't forget this story. If we can't even keep track of that. What makes people think they can do the same with licenses?
Thank you! I'm sick of hearing this bullshit about BSD licenses being free and so much better than the GPL. If you want absolute freedom on both ends of the spectrum don't go half-assed with BSD, go all the way with public domain.
The problem is legally there is no such thing as a "public domain" work created by an individual. If you created it, it is copyright automatically, period. No one can use it without your permission (AKA a license). The BSD license is basically a license that says "do whatever you want with this code, and I take no legal responsibility for it's use". That is pretty much as "public domain" as a license can be. And it's 3 simple letters so it's simple to apply :P
"Public domain" only really applies to works with expired copyright, or works created by public institutions like the U.S. Government.
never mind.
> Write code you love and let it go free. If someone else makes money from it, BFD.
I don't care if they take "my" money. They can make all the money they want off of it, even if it's under the GPL. It's my freedom and my user's freedom I'm worried about! If you want to take that away from us, write your own damn code!
""Public domain" only really applies to works with expired copyright, or works created by public institutions like the U.S. Government."
Not always. Plus a copyright holder can release their works into the public domain. Further detail here.
This is noteworthy in a mall degree given the tactics and caving by half of the industry to Microsoft. Once a project is under V3, they can ignore Microsoft. The companies that sold out to their pressure are going to soon find themselves in a bad situation - abandoned and outdated.
I am with Linus on this one.
If you disagree you must remember what Linus has done for the community all these years.
No one comes even close. I just don't trust RMS.
You obviously don't write code...
TiVo wasn't really a loophole as the license was never intended in its original form to cover situations like that.
Where in the GPLv2 is there any indication that companies have to give you full access to every bit of hardware you purchase, just because it features GPL software?
The TiVo clause in GPLv3 is new precisely because the GPLv2 doesn't cover it. And for what it is worth, while I am the sort who would enjoy something like TiVo hacking, I get DVR service through my cable company for $5 a month, and I'm happy to pay it. Renting a HDTV box is $10, or getting a DVR-HDTV box is $15, and the extra five covers renting the hardware and the service.
Companies are entitled to make money off their products. Most of the people who are upset at TiVo want the ability to reap the benefits of official TiVo hardware without paying for the service. I'd be a liar and a hypocrite if I claimed I paid for everything I've ever downloaded in my life, but as I get older, I certainly feel more of an obligation to pay for the products and services I receive. I have considerably less sympathy for people complaining they can't pirate a service, and feel the company legally is obligated to help them steal such service.
The entire business model of a product like TiVo is selling the hardware with little room for profit, hoping to make their money on the service. And I believe they should be entitled to do just that if they choose. If you don't like that model, then don't buy TiVo. You have plenty of alternatives.
If you really want free "TiVo", then setup a MythTV box. There you go.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I'm thinking that Samba isn't as relevent as it once was. Especially with the growth of Linux and stronger hardware support.
"No, I think they'll either put up or shut up."
I believe Samba-TNG is still going strong, and it's under the older GPL license. Plus there are commercial alternatives. So no it's not going to be a "s**k our or...else" type of situation. But a "push us enough and we'll push back".
The GPL2 does not say that you can use any later version of the GPL.
The "suggested usage" of the GPL, which is in the appedix after the end of the terms and conditions (and thus not binding on the GPL),is to say that you release the code under GPL2 or later. However that suggested usage is not part of the GPL2 itself and you may choose to use that suggested usage or any other usage.
Anyway, Linux is technically not GPL2, but a GPL2-derived license (See the Note at the top of COPYING). The distinction is that the Linux License makes a clarification that an application program is not a derived work of the OS, but is just normal use of the OS. (RMS would like to muddy the water and claim that all code used with a GPL2 OS should be released under GPL). It also states in the most clear language possible that GPL3 does not apply.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
but ever since then, he's been somewhat of a burden to the community.
Let me correct the spelling there for you:
but ever since then, he's been somewhat of a burden to money-grabbing parasites who want to close off free software.
There, that's better.
And yes, you're right, parasites feeding off the free software community have been severely thwarted by RMS's good work on GPLv3, and now probably dislike him even more than before.
This may lead to Samba branching. I'm a not an expert on GPLv2, buy can't someone simply juust take the existing Samba CVS code and create a "new" Samba and stay with the GPLv2?
Is switching to GPLv3 legal in the first place?
Assume I helped fixing a bug, therefore I own 1 line of code. This line is licensed under GPLv2. Samba is not allowed to just change the license without my permission...
.sig: No such file or directory
Why, who will see your code, know it was your code. If you really don't care about restricting others actions, why do you restrict them from telling eveyyone it's their code? Or even just not saying?
Beacuse you do want to restrict but money isn't what you want to restrict. Well, guess what, GPL doesn't care about the money either. You can make moeny off GPL software (Linksys, LaCie, Mandrakesoft, IBM...) and you don't have to pay money (unlike MS's EULA/Developer License). All you have to do is let people have the same freedom you had and take advantage of that in the same way. No money there. You can go make "my" money and TheoDeRaadt can go hang.
No, no, no! Quite the opposite in fact! If they provide a DRM'ed device with GLPv3 Samba installed, the GLPv3 license says that they MUST provide you all information you need to be able to replace that pre-packaged Samba with any GPLv3 Samba you, or anyone else, provide.
That doesn't have to mean much since no one is obligated to provide you with a working solution.
Furthermore, if they're wise and follow "b", there's nothing stopping you, the end user, from installing anything where Samba formerly was, what renders any DRM over the remaining pieces of software pretty much useless.
Not when access to the DRM data has been blocked in the kernel. Not much that an older Samba version can do about that.
Also, just looking at 3.0.25 here they have the "any later version" option. so even if you retained copyright to your patch you submitted it under the "any later version" clause so they are presumably free to invoke that (as would anyone else who wanted to fork the project).
"Either these vendors will give up the lock-in and play nice, or their products will increasingly become dated and substandard."
So what are the benefits of open source again? Apparently for your argument to work, having the source code has to be meaningless.
Here's how at GPLv3 is playing at my Fortune 50 company, who makes contributions to lots of OSS projects.
1. We make tivoized device.
2. OSS project which we use for the device switches to GPLv3.
3. We start looking at other alternatives, decide project is no longer useful to us.
4. We stop contributing to the project.
I anticipate there will be a lot of corporate contributors quietly exiting their Samba involvement in the near future. A few of these exits will see some pub when a major developer switches employers as a result, but most corporate OSS contributions will disappear with a whimper. GPLv3 will return OSS to the original egalitarian ideals, but it's probably going to reverse all the corporate uptake that has happened in the last few years. If you're about to say that this only applies to tivoized devices, you should take a look at the market and see that the majority of corporate uptake of OSS has been in internet-connected appliances.
Webkit is distributed under the LGPL license. They made the whole project LGPL; I don't think anyone can complain about that...
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
You raise an important point that I think the "my way or the highway" GPLers forget. A lot of the Samba workforce is commercial company employees. Now some could do their work in their off hours but it would be hard to overwhelm an alternative with a reduced force.
"We start looking at other alternatives, decide project is no longer useful to us."
I should point out that there's a fork of Samba called Samba-TNG. It's a bit behind but not so much that an infusion of defectors couldn't resolve.
How eloquently you trash the GPL when you obviously never read it. "RMS" and we who understand what he wants have absolutely no problems with people making money of software. What we have a problem with is getting software and then being at the mercy of its creator: If we get software, we want to be able to improve it, should the need arise; otherwise, if the company who distributed the non-free software goes under or just doesn't want to deal with us, we won't get the bugs fixed or new features introduced.
Of course, a company who offers no value when redistributing GPL'd software won't make money: They have to migrate from a sense of entitlement ("intellectual property") to facing the fact that they have to offer some additional value instead of intangible, nearly cost-free reproducible data streams. If they manage that and make money of it, all the better. If they don't, good riddance. But that's their problem, it shouldn't be ours.
Indeed, both as a private person and in any position in a commercial or governmental entity, I'd choose GPL3'd software (or, at the very least, demand contractually that the code is handed over to me so I can fix it and the devices won't stop me from doing that - which pretty much amounts to the same), because I don't want to be dependent on some (other) company when there's no need to be.
Or would you like it if Gates (or Jobs or whoever) decides to take over the world and you can't stop him because he revoked the key for the DRM of the devices of your police, military and any other agency which could stop him? Or how about having a bug in medical software but being unable to fix it because of not having the code and, even if you had the code, updating the software being impossible because of the DRM, thus the hospital equipment randomly killing people by switching off life support or overdosing the IV?
Also, you can still release your own code under any license you like, unless you used GPL'd code in the first case. And you also should think of how much more hassle it is with non-free software where one needs first to ask and pay billions for some "intellectual property" before one can get a bug fixed.
In Soviet Russia, government controls corporations.
In Capitalist America, corporations control government.
[irony]
Everyone hides, Samba adopts GPLv3! Fear it, it will take your birthright to screw with distribution of free software away!
[/irony]
Why such panic? GPLv3 was clearly vetted and tested trough several feedback sessions, which included I think majority of corporations who seriously deals with GPL software in their appliances, software solutions, etc. And their opinion where taken into account. Even Novell in the end can still distribute GPLv3, if they got everything right.
Have Slashdot really became party place for stupid people and Microsoft AstroTurfs? Or it is just new wave of angry Microsoft friendly admins who will stand in first line "against RMS and FSF lead software communism"?
(Pecisk ducks, waiting for Flamebat moderation. Hell with it, sometimes steam just comes out naturally)
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
If you're about to say that this only applies to tivoized devices, you should take a look at the market and see that the majority of corporate uptake of OSS has been in internet-connected appliances.
Internet connected does not mean "tivoized".
For example, Linksys used the Linux kernel on its routers, got forced to publish the source and now you have 3rd party firmware for those devices. So, they did participate and they did use Linux. This deal would still be valid under GPLv3. The only thing you are not allowed to do is FORBID anyone else to put modified code on your device by signing the code.
You can be networked all you want and allow 3rd party code. Those are different issues.
Why must you do #1? If your business requires that you be the only one that can install GPL code on your device, when you sell it to me (and it becomes MY device), don't make it so *I* can't install GPL code on my device.
If you want to deny me support then that's OK (Dell did this: if you installed an OS other than the one that came with the machine, they wouldn't support it: you'd have to get the recovery disks and reinstall before they would deign to look at it).
BootCamp, for example, is part of Apple's move to Trusted Computing... since they require a signed and official bootloader to go with a signed and official kernel, and the TPM hardware they put in their Intel Apple Macs.
The thing is, Apple isn't putting the TPM chip in the Mac Pro or any later Macs. And Apple has shown no signs of pushing "trusted computing" in any other way. And the business of having to have a signed bootloader sounds more like a Microsoft requirement than an Apple one. Do you mean a signed CSM? You don't need Apple's CSM to boot Windows, and it's Microsoft's bootloader that takes over after that.
Could you finish your thought, here?
You spelled agreed to publish wrong.
When someone uses GPL code, they agree to the license that binds that code. If they ignore that license, there is no "forcing" them to publish anything. They agreed to the license, then violated it of their own free will. Bringing them back into compliance is simply making sure they stay within the laws they agreed to uphold when they began using the code.
There's an alternative solution if you don't agree to the terms of the license: Don't use the code, and do it some other way.
> Scarey scarey scare.
Or how about creating obstacles in being able to deal with anyone in the vast majority of people that realise that content has value?
Yes, content has value. Thats why people get paid to make it. Thats why people come up with DRM schemes.
I'm sure you can come up with some idealistic hippie commune ideals where everyone is free and happy, but here in the real world we pay our artists. The people that pay these artists are aware of concepts such as ROI.
In the real world we understand that if we want to sell you a loss leading game console and license it so you only play our games, we are forced to DRM it up the wazoo, otherwise our stock will plummet as the stock of CD-R companies rise. We want to make it inconvenient as hell to hack our ineffective DRM because we can't trust you, the user, to play by the rules.
This society believes in ownership of information.
Don't like it? Start your own. Or if you like, get the numbers to elect someone to make a difference, because until you can you are just like the hippies of the 60s, blindly following the ideals of a long haired scruffy man in sandals. Oh fucking *BAM* triple-ad-homonim combo there.
So before you hit the reply button to point out some niggling flaw in my logic, or to use some flavour of the month "omg strawman" arguments, please consider that the majority slashdot opinion is quite divorced from the majority of societies opinions.
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
Even if they are actual lawyers.
All the posts on this can't be relied on as legal advice for your product/company/situation. GPLv3 has serious consequences for anyone who plans on making a living on pure technology/research/licensing, as opposed to subscriptions & services/ads/slinging boxes. YMMV, but I won't be using any of it in my projects. If that means I have to pay for an MS OS license for CIFS services, well that beats not being able to get any VC money because I don't have any Intellectual Property their lawyers deem protected, or the loss of revenue because BigCo X doesn't have to pay me a royalty (or better yet buy me) because Stallman et al undermined my ownership rights to my research and development.
As with all Socialist Utopian projects, the people who ultimately benefit most are the elites in power, not the commoner duped into supporting the revolution.
Wow, you're such a nice person. How can you stay that nice knowing that the majority of slasdot disagrees with you because it holds change necessary or impossible? I am so unworthy of answering you, because I'm using strawmen and stuff, while you are so incredibly unbiased and objective, but still, here I go:
... You know, screw that. You don't give a shit about what I'm saying, anyway. You're not interested in learning anything, you just want to wallow in your self pity because slashdot doesn't agree with you in every point, lumping everyone into one (can you say straw man?)...
1. "Value" is not something an object or concept has but what is attributed to it by determining how much people are willing to pay for it. However, with the advent of the Internet, information can be reproduced near cost-free and arbitrarily often, such that it becomes a commodity and thus its value approaches its marginal cost.
2. This is, however, not wanted by those "producing" the "goods" because this means that they don't make as much profit. Therefore, they need to create scarcity such that they can charge higher prices. For information, the tool of choice is, of course, DRM.
3. Going off of an tangent: If one is at that point where one needs to create artificial scarcity not only at one point but everywhere (agricultural subventions in the western world, for example), it is obvious that "Hippie Culture" wouldn't work because the means don't exist but because the people don't want it.
4. DRM doesn't not only mean a problem for the consumer but also for every company: If Microsoft can arbitrarily revoke their licenses, every company is de facto under control of Microsoft. If I lead a company, I would not want that. I want to trade on my terms, not having them forced upon me by the other party.
5.
In Soviet Russia, government controls corporations.
In Capitalist America, corporations control government.
So Linksys _did_ use Linux, but will they do it again, considering the license change?
The question that the GP attempts to answer is, will good (=cooperating) companies keep cooperating with the license change.
In this context, Linksys is a pretty poor example, since they failed to grasp the GPLv2 meaning, and when they realized it, had to comply and released their code. Linksys did not actively cooperate. So, are they still using GPLv2 in their products, and providing patches to the community? If so, then we should watch how they will react with GPLv3. Anyway, your example does not counter the GP point (which imho remains to be verified).