Slashdot Mirror
Jeremy Allison Talks Samba and GPLv3
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."
Repost.
Maybe it's just me, but didn't we have this conversation 3 days ago?
Samba Adopts GPLv3 For Future Releases
The original post linked to a FAQ, this one links to a podcast interview of Jeremy Allison. The first one shouldn't have made it through, this one is better, welcome to the world of the firehouse - a story that only links to a FAQ is not a story.
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
slashdot stops posting dupes. No wait...
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
CowboyNeal is rising to the challenge of out-duping Zonk on the main page. The gloves are off. In this clash of titans, who will prevail? Zonk opens by fanning the irony flames with a data mining dupe. CowboyNeal replies with a Samba entry on a RMS theme. What will Zonk do? can you guess the next move?
Stay tuned for Slashdot's biggest show - THE DUPE WAR!
I agree with you.
People who support "open source" and don't like RMS should stop using the GPL (any version).
How we know is more important than what we know.
What does the GPL have to do with usage? It's a source license.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
The GPL was devised primarily by RMS to promote his views on software licensing/distribution. If you don't agree with his views, why license under the GPL? Sooner or later, the license will be revised to match RMS's outlook.
There are tons of open sources licenses, so if you don't agree with the ideology behind the GPL, it doesn't make sense to use it.
Yeah, but this article is licensed under the GPL v 3 !!!
So you can't listen to it using GPL v2 software like linux.
(... and there's bound to be some idiot^Wphb^Wastroturfer out there who is ready to spout off about how this is *really really really* the case and suggest we all avoid the "problems" of the "viral open sores GPL" by going to Windows ....)
Kevin Smith on Prince
LTFA
Get your Unix fortune now!
He only adopted the GPL because of pressure from others and has never believed in it.
[[Citation Needed]]
Anybody have a transcript? I can't be the only one who hates having to listen to something for ten minutes instead of reading it in one or two minutes. Is there anything that actually makes audio necessary? No? Then have it as an optional extra for the people on the go, don't have it as your default format when you know it's going to be decidedly suboptimal for the majority of your visitors!
I'm generally a very pragmatic person: that which works, works. When it comes to software, I _much_ prefer free software, because I have very seldom seen a program that has worked well enough for my needs, and having sources available can be a life-saver.From an interview with Linus Torvalds himself - http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html :
So in that sense I am an avid promoter of free software, and GPL'd stuff in particular (because once it's GPL'd I _know_ it's going to stay free, so I don't have to worry about future releases).
I changed the copyright to the GPL within roughly half a year: it quickly became evident that my original copyright was so restrictive that it prohibited some entirely valid uses (disk copying services etc - this was before CD-ROM's became really popular). And while I was nervous about the GPL at first, I also wanted to show my appreciation to the gcc C compiler that Linux depended on, which was obviously GPL'd.Further more:
Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did.
So... I'd say you are completely and utterly wrong.
It was not illegal just against the terms of the licence. This condition is of course one of the reasons he saw it as a bad licence as far as I can recall from the statements at the time. There is no point trying to read between the lines or bring extra baggage from other converations into this.
Hmm, the FSF is not a church. It is not a gospel. It is not a faith. It is just a bunch of people who think that the best way to spread computer knowledge for the betterment of mankind is to turn software into a free commodity. You are free to do otherwise. Just write your own software then. Don't leach off other people's charity work for your profit. A good example is Tivo. Tivo can do whatever they want, provided that they write their own software and don't leach off GPL software. Tivo can either free up their code the way the GPL intends, or they can rewrite their system using Microsoft Windows, or VxWorks, Or Sun Solaris. It is their choice. That is all that the FSF and the GPL is about.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Wrong person full stop. :-)
:-)
You're confusing me with tridge. I don't know why people do that. He's the clever one, I'm just better at P.R.
Jeremy.
Well, just last month he claimed he understood the spirit of the GPL better than the people who wrote the damn thing:
You claim that I "misunderstood" the "spirit of the GPL".Dammit, the GPL is a license. I understand it quite well. Probably better than most. The fact that the FSF then noticed that there were *other* things that they wanted to do, and that were *not* covered by the GPLv2, does *not* mean that they can claim that others "misunderstood" the license.
So tell me: who is the more confused one: the one who chose the license fifteen years ago, and realized what it means legally, and still stands behind it? I don't think so.
The whole idea that there is a philosophy behind the GPL and that is the spirit, not the words that are written down to satisfy the lawyers is just lost on the guy. He goes on to say:
The beauty of the GPLv2 is exactly that it's a "tit-for-tat" license, and you can use it without having to drink the kool-aid.I've said that over and over again. It's the "spirit of the GPLv2". It's what has made it such a great license, that lots of people (and companies) can use, is very fundamentally that it's fair.
The fact that the FSF sees *another* spirit to it is absolutely not a reason to say that I'm "confused". Quite frankly, apparently I'm _less_ confused than they are, since I saw the GPLv2 for what it was, and they did not - and as a result they felt they needed to extend upon it, because the license didn't actually match what they thought it would do. And now I hope you are as totally lost as I am. The "spirit of the GPLv2", what the hell does that mean? Maybe I just have this concept of a "spirit" of a document wrong but to me, it means "what the guy who wrote this document was trying to say". RMS wrote the document. He defines the spirit. The FSF represent his message.. they get their mandate from him. So for Linus to say that he understands the spirit of the GPLv2 better than they do is just obnoxious.
As for the comment about drinking the kool-aid, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You wanna talk about confusing? How confusing is it for you to choose the GPL, a Free Software license, when you just don't believe in the Free Software philosophy? If you don't wanna drink the kool-aid, and yet you still wanna use their license, don't get confused when people who have drunk the kool-aid wonder why you don't care about the same things they care about. Choosing the GPL for your project should be a message that you *have* drunk the kool-aid.
Otherwise, take off the t-shirt already.
How we know is more important than what we know.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Somehow I don't think you're the real Miguel :-).
:-) :-).
Nice impersonation though, although a bit too obvious
Jeremy.
I actually read the GPL - all versions. The spirit of the GPL hasn't changed. It has always said: If you are a team player, then donate your code modifications back for the greater good and ensure that your users have all the rights that you have. If you are not a team player, then go away, do your own thing and leave us alone.
Unfortunately, as the GPL code corpus grew, various commercial leaches sensed an opportunity to profit off other people's charity. For example Tivo and lately Microsoft. The GPL V3 changed the wording to make it abundantly clear that leaches will not be tolerated and that all users have equal rights. Some users cannot be more equal than others. If you don't want to play, then go away. We don't need you, you need us.
Nothing changed. That has always been the intent of the GPL:
"Copyleft, most rights reversed."
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
We used to not read the article to reply. Well, I admit: this time I didn't listen to it.
my other sig is a 500 page novel
However the paticular licence for bitkeeper forbid reverse-engineering which is one of the reasons why people did not like it. Andrew Tridgell's employer had licenced the software and was supposed to keep to the conditions of that licence no matter how stupid they may appear, even if it meant stopping him logging in to work out how it behaved. It comes back to either not using the software if you do not like the licence or being honest about violating the licence (as I think he was but commenters were not) if you entirely disagree with it and think you can justify it. Personally I think it was a little bit of a kick in the teeth to a small company that couldn't see how they could make money with a better licence but might have come around some day - like a short rerun of the Trolltech thing only with a far worse original licence.
To Linus it's just a software license. To RMS and the rest of us who believe in Free Software, it's the legal embodiment of a philosophy. My only hope for the future is that people who don't care about the philosophy stick with GPLv2 and those that do, switch to GPLv3.
How we know is more important than what we know.
As far as Tivo goes, lets get something streight, leaching isn't a bad term with free software. It has always been ok to leach the programs, distributing without providing the source has been the bad thing. These are two entirely different things. But Tivo did give the source back, The problem is that they product an appliance not a general purpose computer. People want to use an appliance computer as a general purpose computer and the use outside of distribution has always been specifically stated in the GPL to be outside the scope of the GPL. The job of a software license isn't to ensure compliance of the hardware someone wants to run it on. There are certain applications like software radios that the GPLv3 are completely incompatible with now because the FCC requires, or did there has been some changes lately, but they require the radio to be locked down from changes by consumers. And the GPLv3 says this isn't acceptable now. And there is other things too. But more to the point, Hardware manufacturers can actually lose their IP now so vendor provided drivers might be harder to come by and that I think is too great of a cost to pay because a few people want to use an appliance computer as a general purpose computer. If you honestly believe this, I think you didn't understand the GPL in the first place. The intent has always be so that the code remains free and that you can change it if necessary. Not to control hardware and make sure you can run your own stuff on the hardware which is something that has always been explicitly held outside the scope of the license.
And now there is this MS Novell Patent clause that will backfire and cause a lot of problems too. If you think Microsoft is disrespecting the GPLv3 now, wait until they craft their license to place everyone into a little Novell situation and then sell their product sans the clause for 10 times the cost in order to kick the you can no longer convey a GPLv3 covered work again for anyone who uses an Microsoft products. When no major distributer is able to convey a GPLv3 covered work because of wording in the GPLv3 itself, I guess people will take notice. But this license is reckless and selfish.
The transcript is already started. Watch the LinuxWorld home page or get the RSS feed to be notified when it's up.
People want to use an appliance computer as a general purpose computer and the use outside of distribution has always been specifically stated in the GPL to be outside the scope of the GPL.
What end users actually do with the program has always been outside the scope of the license. The GPLv3 did not change that. What Tivo is doing, however, is restricting end users from using a modified version of the program. That has always been against the license, also with the GPLv2, but has been made very clear in the GPLv3 that hardware tricks is no exception to the rule.
What happened is: Preventing end users from running a modified version has always been against the GPL. Tivo found a loop-hole, that allowed them to do it anyway. Or at least their lawyers thought so, and the FSF apparently thought that a judge might agree with Tivo that there actually was a hole. So they set out to fix the hole.
There exist no such thing as an "appliance computer". THe Tivo is a normal computer, to which Tivo Inc. added some restrictions.
But the Tivo part is only the start. They went too far and it would appear that they didn't even do that very well. You see, the GPLv3 doesn't even stop Tivo from doing the same stuff. They can still disable the device if their special version of software isn't running.
I've been visiting Digg a lot lately and I'd have to say that the dupe level there is far worse, especially lately. The difference is editorial control, which Digg's "wisdom of the crowds" can't really match. A zillion people picking front page stories are going to pick dupes, whereas the once-a-week rate here is considerably better.
Nope, this guy is a troll who's been living here for a few years.
Imagine I own a vineyard. Also, imagine I wrote up a contract between me and my neighbor to exchange a bushel of grapes for $5. Now, imagine after signing the contract, my neighbor decides he'd really like white grapes. It happens that I don't grow white grapes on my land, so I'd have to buy them at a cost of $6 (where my own grapes have an effective cost of $4). Since the contract is so vaguely worded, one could say* that my neighbor has every right to demand the white grapes, even though the spirit of the contract was to exchange my grapes for his $5. Or, in short, sometimes the legalize that is used to cover an issue isn't accurately enough written to deal with issues that might arise.
Beyond this, one has to remember that 15 years ago, the DMCA didn't exist. Copyright law has changed in many other countries as well. A major part of the GPLv3 was to attempt to better harmonize the language to be more consistent with international copyright law. So, there's at least a few reasons to try to better describe in legal terms the intent of the GPL in a new license.
*IANAL, so I don't know how well this argument would actually stand in court. After all, intent is often used when the language of a contract is vague. The major problem with the GPL's vagueness is that the GPL's intent was to cover usage (specifically, there's an innate assumption that one can use the software (look into First-sale Doctrine)) while copyright doesn't provide a direct means for that. As such, the GPLv3 is left to attack the common means used to limit the use of GPL'd software.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Here are some choice excerpts from said list:
License of Netscape Javascript: "This disjunctive license is a good choice if you want to make your package GPL-compatible and MPL-compatible. However, you can also accomplish that by using the LGPL or the Guile license." Intentionally suggesting that there's something wrong with the license and telling you to use something else despite the fact that it's a GPL-compatible license.
Artistic License 1.0 (one of the licenses for Perl 5): "We cannot say that this is a free software license because it is too vague; some passages are too clever for their own good, and their meaning is not clear." The problem with this license isn't spelled out. You'd think that someone who is complaining that something is too vague would elaborate on what they thought was too vague.
License of Perl 5 and below: "We recommend you use this license for any Perl 4 or Perl 5 package you write, to promote coherence and uniformity in Perl programming. Outside of Perl, we urge you not to use this license; it is better to use just the GNU GPL." Vilifying it because you can choose the license directly above this one.
Apache License, Version 1.1: "We urge you not to use the Apache licenses for software you write." Vilified solely because it has "a few requirements that render it incompatible with the GNU GPL." which are not further elaborated upon. Oddly enough, the Apache License, Version 2.0 is compatible with the GPLv3, so apparently the wording for the first line hasn't yet been updated.
CDDL: "It requires that all attribution notices be maintained, while the GPL only requires certain types of notices. Also, it terminates in retaliation for certain aggressive uses of patents. So, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason." Vilified because it's not GPLv2 compatible. No mention of whether or not it's GPLv3 compatible.
LaTeX Project Public License 1.2: "This license contains complex and annoying restrictions..." Vilified.
Lucent Public License Version 1.02 (Plan 9 license): "This is a free software license, incompatible with the GNU GPL. We recommend that you not use this license for new software that you write, but it is ok to use and improve Plan 9 under this license." Vilified for not being GPL compliant
Mozilla Public License, Netizen Open Source License (NOSL), Version 1.0: I'll cover these two together because of the similarity of wording. "...it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the [license] cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the [license] for this reason." No further elaboration upon why they are not GPL compatible... so they're vilified for not being GPL compatible.
OpenSSL License: "The license of OpenSSL is a conjunction of two licenses, one of them being the license of SSLeay. You must follow both. The combination results in a copyleft free software license that is incompatible with the GNU GPL. It also has an advertising clause like the original BSD license and the Apache license." Note the lack of explanation of why SSLeay's license is bad (other than the advertising clause) despite drawing attention to it by name. Also note that GNU has a competing, but less widely-used project, GNUTLS. (Before you comment, yes, this IS disclosed in a paragraph I omitted here.)
PHP License, Version 3.01: "We recommend that you not use this license for anything except PHP add-ons." The explanation is that it isn't copyleft, but not elaborated upon.
lha license: "The lha license must be considered non-free because it is too unclear
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Let me be plain for a moment, you are an idiot.
But this license is reckless and selfish.
This is a brave (NOT foolish) attempt to pull the "reckless and selfish" companies that abuse the spirit of the GPL licence for their own gains back into their place. Make no mistake this is the COMMUNITY'S code, not microsoft et al's. I am happy for microsoft to turn their back on linux, free software, open source and the whole gamut of freebies that I have at the pointy points of my fingertips. Or haven't you already noticed microsoft trying to lock/ban any user from using linux code with the whole SCO debarcle. Wake up and smell the legal action you idiot. The world is extremely hostile towards free software and the fact that it has become so successful has meant many companies want to hitch a ride on the free software train and carve out their own "open source" fortress. Now that they've seen how good it is, some companies are trying to keep it for themselves and not share. Just like patents, patenting was tool to help the underdog to get an edge, not for big companies to hoarde and lock up the market with their "ideas" it was supposed to provide innovation and protection to those less privileged and thanks to big corporation's influence and flooding the system with inane grabs at ip, the system has failed.
Then along comes the GPL, meant to protect users and developers and fuel innovative concepts that all of us (the less fortunate) can benefit from, and we see history repeating itself, the big corps have shon their big shiny eye on the treasure trove of ip, innovation and code and thought "how can we make all of this ours? and if we can't make it ours how can we force people to stop using it". Now microsoft is swinging it big patent clad IP hammer at the founding pillar of the GPL and you have the GAUL to say amending the GPL to stop these greedy slugs is reckless and selfish? Who the fuck do you think you are? I don't CARE if it causes problems for companies, COMPANIES are the main cause of all this crap that is going on in the first place.
And lets get one thing straight, when it came to Tivo "giving the source back", lets be crystal clear, it was NEVER THEIRS to begin with, they modified code that belonged to the community and tried to keep it for themselves. And the point about hardware vendors losing their IP is a crock of shit also, patent protection is passed only to users for the software being used, it is hardly as broad as you think, and anyone that locks their hardware is literally locking themselves out of the market anyway, bluray and hd players can go get stuffed if they have the nerve to thikn i'll buy their drives, they'd be better suited as paper weights.
The GPLv3 jumped the spirit and I am surprised that I have received this many comments about it. I have mentioned it before and usually get ignored and modded down or something.
As for the generic license, How about this, "All freedoms expressed or protected by this license are implicit in their intended design, Any usage combined with specific hardware must allow the benefiters of these freedom to express that freedom with respect to the covered works and the hardware it is distributed with. Nothing in this clause stops the ability of the covered works from being used with other combinations of hardware and it placed no demand on any distributer to make it able to work with other hardware outside not being able to deny it. It places no demand on any distributer to ensure something not included inside their specific act of distributing the covered works with the hardware as it was intended to be used by the distributer when sold outside the fact that they cannot stop or deny you the freedoms protect by this license in respect the the hardware itis associated with"
Seems simple, conveys the message and the point, closes all the "loopholes" (that wasn't there in the GPLv2 despite the claims) and ensures that when you buy a product that contains GPLv3 covered software, that you can use it after making some changes. It doesn't need a team of lawyers to determine if you think you will be screwed after touching it. It doesn't pose a threat to hardware vendors who feel they need a way to go back on companies that use the drivers to steal feature designs and produce clones products.
While I'd agree that your characterization of "appliance computer" as a computer that has been "crippled" is accurate; it is also incomplete.
If all you want is a device that does X, and packaging a computer as an appliance that does only X saves both development costs, and administrative overhead, then I'd say it's a damn useful crippled computer.
I wouldn't want to have an appliance as a desktop system to do my accounting/web browsing and email.
But I wouldn't want to have to deal with all the administrative overhead of managing software installs, disk space, etc. for something that's just slinging video to my TV, or web pages.
"appliance" is a much abused buzzword - I'll give you that. But they're damn handy for a lot of infrastructure tasks (routers, anyone?).
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.