Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samba Adopts GPLv3 For Future Releases

Posted by kdawson on from the first-trickle-in-the-flood dept.

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."

7 of 219 comments (clear)

  1. Free software my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    WTF is wrong with you people fussing all about licenses?

    Remember when real code slingers wrote real code? Now it's just a bunch of faux-lawyers gumming up the works turning everything into an administrative nightmare.

    Write code you love and let it go free. If someone else makes money from it, BFD. "RMS" can go shove it.

    I'm gonna write programs. I'll either let it go free, DRM it, or whatever the fuck I feel like.

    If some lame-ass tries to sue me for using "his" code, I'll just ignore him, or code around him. Whatever seems most fitting.

    1. Re:Free software my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      Trust me bud....I've got thousands of lines of code running freely out there with no license at all generating millions of dollars of revuenue. I'm happy enough with what I got out of the deal.

      While people like you whine about licenses, I actually do the real coding.

      Feh. He who can't program, write licenses.

      License leaching freeks.

  2. Re:smbfs? by moosesocks · · Score: 0, Troll

    Couldn't it be implemented using a FUSE module?

    From what I understand, the use of a system like FUSE skirts around most licensing requirements...

    Personally, I think that GPLv3 was a very stupid move on RMS's behalf for reasons such as this. Sure, he helped establish the free software movement in the 80s and 90s, but ever since then, he's been somewhat of a burden to the community.

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  3. Re:GPL3 not practical for Linux kernel by oyenstikker · · Score: 0, Troll

    RMS _wants_ Linux to get forked and to lose support. Then people will come help him with HURD.

    --
    The masses are the crack whores of religion.
  4. SHUT THE FUCK UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Not everything in the world has to be made to be about google, you fucking fanboy cuntrag motherfucker.

  5. Re:smbfs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Sure, he helped establish the free software movement in the 80s and 90s, but ever since then, he's been somewhat of a burden to the community.

    Speak for yourself ass wipe because you certainly don't speak for "the community".

  6. In other news...YOU CAN LOCK UP BITS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    "If my goal is to maximize the freedom of the users of my software then, paradoxically, I must restrict them - specifically, from taking freedom away from others."

    Heh, heh. Yeah! Just like the RIAA/MPAA can "take away" your freedom to do whatever you want with "bits"