Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jeremy Allison Talks Samba and GPLv3

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the early-adopters dept.

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."

7 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

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

  2. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

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

  3. Linus is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    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

    1. Re:Linus is right by Miguel+de+Icaza · · Score: -1, Troll

      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.

      --
      Before adopting WHATWG, read the moonlight.NET EULA [http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx]
  4. Re:Transcript? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    JEREMY ALLISON IS A KNOWN FAGGOT.

    GPLv3 IS WORTHLESS

    FUCK RMS

    qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq

  5. Worng person to ask about licences by dbIII · · Score: 0, Troll

    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).

  6. Re:Implications for commercial companies? by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Troll

    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.