Slashdot Mirror
Apple Remove Samba From OS X 10.7 Because of GPLv3
recoiledsnake writes "The upcoming release of Mac OS X 10.7 Lion Server will remove the formerly bundled open source Samba software and replace it with Apple's own tools for Windows file sharing and network directory services. In both Mac OS X Server and client editions, Samba enables Macs to share files with Windows clients on the network and access Windows file servers. It has also later allowed Mac OS X Server to work as an NT Domain Controller to manage network accounts and make roaming profiles and home directories available to Windows PC users. However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially. Apple is now said to be recommending Active Directory to users who are still dependent upon the older NT Domain Controller network directory services. Apple has previously stopped contributing code to GCC and started looking at other options like LLVM because of GCC's switch to GPLv3."
Seriously, if you try to promote freedom and free code, you have to allow people to use it how they want. If you try to define what's allowed and try to get people to do or not to do what YOU want them, you aren't promoting free code. Your code is just as "bad" as proprietary code. True freedom is letting people do what they want, even if they have different values than you.
GPL is like promoting free speech until someone saids something YOU don't like. True freedom is letting people do what they want. That includes making money with the code, or using that code in a larger proprietary code. If you do not allow this you're a hypocrite.
It's backwards thinking and does no good to free and open source movement, as companies won't even be considering using it. GPL alone has created a large problem. It has made companies associate open source with huge legal trouble, and generally will make companies avoid open sourcing and open source code completely just because of GPL. They rather get the easier and guaranteed legally good alternative, which is licensing from other companies like MPEG-LA for H.264 and Microsoft for WP7 and so on.. Yes, it costs money. But when dealing with companies, it's a lot easier for them and solves many troubles that the hypocrites at GPL headquearters have caused for the whole open source movement. This is why I support true open source licenses that allow both free and proprietary use. They are the real free licenses, not GPL, and unless we deal with that hypocricy Microsoft will always win. I'm personally disgusted by this move by Samba team, as they're the ones that try to make it easy to both move away from Windows and integrate with other operating systems. GPL is bad.
Seems like an overreaction. Just fork the V2 version. Or maybe that's what they're doing.
BS. Apple can still use it commercially. The only reason to drop it, if the GPL3 is really their problem, is so they can sue over patents they hold that cover things in Samba.
GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially.
No, it doesn't. That's a ridiculous assertion presented without any evidence or reason.
As wikipedia might demand: Citation needed.
Apple has been moving away from the GPL in all it's forms for a while now. They just got around to us (I'm guessing we were pretty high on the list once they got rid of gcc :-).
Jeremy.
Nawh, just kidding. We love you, Steve, we really, really, do. Hope your depositioning goes well - we don't want to see you repeat Mr Bill's rocking-chair antics of last century... as funny as that always is.
The more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially
Uhhh...no it doesn't. Read the license. If you don't want to read the license, just read GNU's handy GPL FAQ, which includes a section on whether or not you can sell GPL software commercially.
I'll give you a hint: the answer is yes, you can.
That said, Apple may have perfectly legitimate reasons for not wanting to use the GPLv3, but an imaginary prohibition on commercial software isn't one of them!
It is silly to move it to GPLv3 because now Apple developers will no longer contribute to samba. Otherwise, it's a non issue...just install it yourself.
Errr. what?
I don't completely understand the problem here.
The GPLv3 issues in this particular case shoot way over my head. But, the GPL isn't the problem.
WP7 isn't being supported by ZTE and other bulk low-to-mid-end OEMs because of it's licensing requirements(namely, money; and the fact that WP7 hasn't moved a lot of phones).
h.264 is being cross licensed mostly due to patent AND compatibility issues. GPL isn't the core of this issue. Getting sued by the MPEG LA is.
GPL is the solution. If you want your source to be available and don't care what happens to the binary, go GPLv2. If you care about the binary and have RMS like thoughts about "Freedom" and computing go for the GPLv3. The GPL is a legal boilerplate that allows developers the freedom-as-in-freedom to have a legal backing so they can have their wishes respected when it comes to what happens to their code.
What Apple's doing is simply respecting the spirit of the GPL v3. If you really want Samba in Lion server, you can build it yourself from source in Lion after installing Xcode. If you really want Samba, you'll probably know how to do this, and if you don't, you'll probably want to know how to do this anyway.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
"However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially. "
Nothing in the GPLv3 prohibits using the software commercially, unless that means taking software that others wrote and released and making it unfree.
As for all the posters who will say now that the GPL is too restrictive and actually has nothing to do with freedom - yes it restricts the freedom of the person distributing the software in either its original or a changed version but only exactly to the extent necessary to guarantee that the person who receives the software gets the same extent of freedom as the original software allowed. The freedom to take other people's freedom away is certainly some kind of freedom, but probably not the kind that the creators of Samba wanted to promote.
It is actually an intended consequence of the GPL to keep companies that want to distribute software in a restricted way (e.g. on "locked" phones where they control what you can install, and probably soon enough on "locked computers" under the pretense of security) from doing this with GPLed software. That Apple cannot use the software for such purposes puts free software and hardware at an advantage and increases the cost for Apple of taking away people's freedom.
Presumably, the developers that put their code under the GPL wanted exactly that.
Yeah, that was my first reaction as well. The summary is flat out wrong the way it is worded, but there are legitimate licensing issues.
The problem is with the iPhone, not OS X (yet). If you distribute binaries covered by the GPLv3 on a device, the license requires you to provide any signing keys, or other information/tools required to run modified versions of the software on the device. The iPhone requires all applications to be signed, and does not provide signing keys to it's users, thus they can't use GPLv3 software (like samba) on iOS.
They probably figure it is easier to maintain a single SMB/CIFS implementation rather than two, so they are ditching it on OS X as well (or they have other plans for OS X that we are not aware of yet).
Personally, I think Apple is trying to totally close their software and hardware ecosystems so only they can provide software, or are the gatekeeper of all software, that will run on any Apple device. The only way to stop this is by voting with our pocketbooks! After this sort of behavior, I am boycotting Apple products like I am Sony's. If I purchase something, I own it and therefor have the right to use it as I see fit, not as someone else does. The way Apple wants it to work is that you are in effect leasing from them. You don't own it, and are constrained with what you can do with/to it.
Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
A new set of SAMBA tools. Who knows?
For all their PR about how easy it is to connect Mac & Windows, that has always been (on many different machines and networks) one of the sketchiest OS X features in my experience. From Jaguar days, when a Mac that went to sleep had to be rebooted to ever reconnect to a Windows share it happily saw before, to (Snow) Leopard when they simply won't connect at all most of the time, at home or at work, even with an IP address, it's been the same hell of workarounds that didn't work. I'd be more than happy to stop carrying USB drives around.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Summary says "GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially" but I don't understand that at all. My understanding was that the GPL does not prohibit commercial use. Can someone explain why GPLv3 would prevent Apple from using code commercially?
was about code reciprocity. Must be getting old now.
Michael J. Fox Remove Samba From OS X 10.7 Because of Parkinsons
However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially.
That should be: However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially in the way they want to use it.
On the iPhone and iPad, Apple wants the device itself to be closed, which means the user is not allowed to install operating system components. Samba is an operating system component. If Apple allowed the end user to replace it, then jailbreaking would be as easy as replacing Samba with a hacked version, then using Samba from within any application. On MacOS X, no problem; you may replace Samba as much as you like; if it doesn't work, it's your problem obviously.
So on iDevices, Apple cannot use GPL v3 code commercially _the way they want to use it_. So they can't use it. At that point it's obviously better to have one code base and replace it on MacOS X as well.
It looks like Apple and the Linux app groups are trying to be more restrictive than Microsoft. (OK, Apple already is,) Pretty soon we'll be back to typewriters and adding machines etc. because you won't be able to turn on a switch without violating some clown's preciousssss IP.
What the hell is 'has previously'?
http://www.acetonestudio.com
The reason is Apple is moving towards DRM on OS X. You will not be able to install 3rd party software if that software is not signed.
So, summary is complete bullshit. Apple removes GPLv3 software because it conflicts with Apps-only-OSX.
GPL = code must be free
BSD= people must be free to do what they want with the code
That nonense again. Strawman included: You are allowed to make money of GPL code.
The free speech "analogy" I'm inclined to rank as a strawman as well.
You are free to put the terms YOU like on YOUR work, you do not have the right to use the work of others under your own terms.
Your blahblah just means "damn, I'm not allowed to take the work of OTHERS and use it onder MY conditions".
Epic fail.
...the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially.
Complete and utter rubbish. Who got this wrong, Apple or the submitter?
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
I hate that sort of comment, but this is the one actual intelligent comment I've seen on this article. It explains clearly the circumstances that mean Apple can't use GPLv3 software in their /System, but can use GPLv2: GPLv3's anti-Tivoization clauses.
The comment above is insightful, highly relevant, and made in a calm, noninflammatory manner in the middle of a GPL vs. BSD argument. Obviously, iluvcapra should face a tribunal to decide whether he or she has violated Slashdot norms.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Personally, I think Apple is trying to totally close their software and hardware ecosystems so only they can provide software, or are the gatekeeper of all software, that will run on any Apple device. The only way to stop this is by voting with our pocketbooks! After this sort of behavior, I am boycotting Apple products like I am Sony's. If I purchase something, I own it and therefor have the right to use it as I see fit, not as someone else does. The way Apple wants it to work is that you are in effect leasing from them. You don't own it, and are constrained with what you can do with/to it.
Yeah, we all accept this as truth already.The zeroth axiom of Slashdot: Apple wants to run your life, and charge you for it.
The move to llvm (and its heavy sponsoring) was because gcc was too monolithic to make it evolve the way they needed in XCode (accessing the code parser for instance, or having separate code generation backends). I doubt they cared much about the license in this case, since gcc 4.2 is still shipped with XCode.
Did no one read the final paragraph in the article? While GPLv3 may well have been part of the decision, it appears compatibility with Windows 7 has been somewhat problematic for Samba. A quick Google search shows this page, indicating that the current solution involves hacking the registry. Not exactly seamless, and I can see Apple wanting to switch for that reason alone.
Now Apple will have to code their own shit instead of stealing from free projects.
But there is something wrong with an open source license that caused a major player to revert to proprietary code.
...the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially.
Blatantly false, as many others have pointed out. If the reason was licensing, it would be more subtle than that, and would have to do with the particulars of Apple's desires around distribution. And that's a big if, it might simply have to do with features and support.
Apple has previously stopped contributing code to GCC and started looking at other options like LLVM because of GCC's switch to GPLv3.
Also false--Apple is switching away from GCC because it's clunky, slow, outdated, and the GCC team is hostile to Apple's extensions and does not want Apple's contributions--every developer I know has been very much looking forward to being able to drop GCC and use LLVM.
No, it doesn't say that AT ALL.
What it DOES say is that if you put YOUR software patent into YOUR GPL3 code then YOU are agreeing that anyone else can use that software patent under terms compatible with the GPLv3 license.
What it DOES NOT say is that if you use GPL3 software you can't have patents or have to give them away. Just don't modify the GPL3 program or make a derived product (as defined by your government, so if you don't like the definition, take it up with them) and include patents you won't give anyone else.
Since Apple only want to USE Samba, not make their own version of it, they can't be putting THEIR patents in the Samba software, so the GPL3 license isn't a problem.
Imagine if pre war Nazi Germany had a constitution which prevented the population voting away their own rights. What would have been the result, a less free country or a more free country.
The BSD and similar licences allow you to give away all rights to code based on your work. It was designed to allow software produced in universities to be privatised and that remains its primary purpose. GPLv3 prevents the closure of the code in just the same way as a robust constitution prevents dictators from getting undemocratic practices voted in to replace the democratic ones.
The Nazis would deny this though.
So where is the debate above GPLv2 vs GPLv3?
I wasn't so keen on GPLv2. Its bad enough already but to create revisions when most people hardly understand v1 (most are not slashdot readers.)
I think it should just be GPL+ where the author slaps on additional restrictions instead of pushing more stuff into GPL v# so we end up with a bunch of different things under the same heading.
I like sometimes fixing something in GPL code - for the contribution factor, not because somebody might be locking down an installation of the software. The lock-in part I don't mind and in many situations volunteers wouldn't mind but a few big contributors or some non-profit then decides to shift it to something else -- that kind of bugs me. GPL v4 should state that all future modifications must stick to the GPL it started with and not be allowed to migrate to something else. Sure its still GPL at its core-- until microsoft embraces GPL and their lawyers get GPLv5 in 10 years... (Apple wouldn't they'd do APLv2 or something and claim it was a compatible thing to transition the GPL code to..)
Don't think the law actually works on its own forever; the lawyers seem to have less respect for it than .... May I suggest a documentary which illustrates my point: "The Art of the Steal" which shows just how strong a good legal document actually is.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Apple LIKE M$, IBM, ORACLE are for profit companies. They do what is in THEIR best interest. If your "whatever" in any shape or form prevent them from doing what THEY want then they go alternative. There's nothing wrong with profiting from free but give back from which you took....opensource... Its irrelevant if GPL3 is is isn't for you. -The difference of opinion is an opinion.
The article mentions that GCC has now been made GPL3, and Apple's stopped contributing.
Now, I understand why the Samba folks might not want their code to be used to produce an unmodifyable network appliance. GPL3 can help there, I guess. But Apple's not preventing Mac owners from updating Samba modules on their systems, so it's not that part of GPL3 that's causing the problem. And GCC isn't likely to appear in locked-down appliances at all. In fact GCC, as a dev tool, is probably a candidate for LGPL-type licensing.
So the Mac ends up being collateral damage to something else in the GPL3. And I assume the problem is the part of GPL3 about patents. I hate software patents as much as the next guy, but I don't see how Apple's embrace of them affects Samba users on Macs one bit. So, it's a political position, not a practical one. And a self-defeating one, if you ask me. All it does is make Macs work worse in Windows-based networks, ceding a bigger segment of the market to Microsoft.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
cmdrtaco, please, please correct that summary. Can you change this However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially To something like However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which people at Apple somehow got the idea that it prevents them from using the software commercially Or a more apple friendly solution, However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which is not compatible with Apple closed source standard. I think most of slashdot users will agree with the change. The summary is misleading and for people who doesnt understand this might make them that gpl v3 is for non commercial software.
How many people are running NT domain controllers on a Mac? Seriously... Naturally, my next sentiment is -- who cares.
Apple has neither attacked a hacker nor put rootkits on users' systems.
Apple and the FSF may not see eye to eye, but Apple is one of the better corporate citizens when it comes to open source and the end customer.
None of the above has any bearing on whether you want to boycott their closed-system approach. I applaud your boycott, though I won't be joining you.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Do you see why "limits" on certain rights don't necessarily decrease freedom? It's called living in an equitable and free society; your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. So it is with GPL: your right to "do whatever you want with the code" ends where other peoples' rights to do whatever they want with the code begins.
Nathan's blog
Also, perhaps somebody could clarify why Samba defaulting to GPLv3 implies Apple not being able to use it as they wish anymore? Has nobody outside Qt ever heard of dual licensing? It seems to be working pretty well for them, and I doubt nobody at Apple has ever thought of this.
Dear /. editors: how about some actual investigation (ever?) into the issue before joining in this willy nilly copy pasta frenzy, hmm? Maybe this was not such a good news source?
Does Apple have to approve everyone's programs now? WTF? Why should someone have to dual-license their code because Apple wants it? Call the Wambulance for Apple, because the GPLv3 keeps them from taking other peoples work and locking it away for their profit. I have said it before, and will keep repeating it: Apple is the enemy of free software, and the FSF.
BSD isn't bad per se, but it allows a 'bad player' like Microsoft to modify standards in ways that break interoperability. If you are attempting to write standards-compliant code, and you don't want that code to be used to sabotage the very standards you're trying to support, then the BSD's not for you.
GPL cleverly prevents such a situation. It strikes a nice balance between commercial interests (ability to charge for products based on the code) and the ongoing freedom of the original writer to have the benefit of the code. Not necessarily financial benefit (though that's possible too), but the benefit of outside contributions and a developing ecosystem that makes the code ever more valuable. Up to GPL2 that worked great - witness the success of Linux vs BSD. Linux is much more flexible, because many more players saw the benefits of getting involved.
GPL3 has delved beyond freedom into politics. I believe it attempts to address 2 issues.
The first is Tivo'ization, which I think is a good thing, but some don't like. Yes, Tivo might not exist without Linux, but Linux has gotten a huge boost from being usable in appliances like this. Tivo (or Apple, in this case) still contributes any changes they make under GPL2, so that's not the problem. The problem is that you can't take their loss-leader hardware and use it any way you want. I have no problem with that, but others do (I think they're being unreasonable, and by the way, so does Linus Torvalds).
The second is patents. That's a serious problem, but the best solution is patent reform - not 'I'm taking my ball and going home'. I guess this could work, but depriving Mac users of Samba over unrelated patent issues (I assume Apple has no patents relevant to Samba) is getting beyond the goal of 'keeping the code free'. Software patents are mostly an abomination, but GPL3 is an awfully blunt instrument to attack them with.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
From the anything-you-can-do department. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle indicates that it is impossible to know exact position and exact velocity at exactly the same time. Relativity. Event horizon. What is the position of the particle crossing the event horizon? What is the velocity of the particle crossing the event horizon? There is no event horizon. Relativity. You can do anything.
In related news, GPLv3 has achieved a state of relevance. Gone are the days when we would muse over how the GPLv3 may or may not affect our world. Finally GPLv3 is a real license. It can do anything. Relativity.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
TFA doesn't mention a source, and that bothers me. Is this information about Lion derived from the early developer test versions, or has someone at Apple stated that this is the way it is?
* chirp * chirp *
From TFA:
the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially.
I know nothing that GPLv3 does which prevents anyone from using it commercially, certainly nothing it does that GPLv2 doesn't. TFA doesn't say what Apple's actual problem is, but as evil as Apple has been, they aren't this stupid.
On the other hand, the version of Samba Apple had been using prevented Macs from seamlessly working with modern PCs running Windows 7, which include security changes in how encryptions protocols work. Apple's own software won't be constrained by the design limitation of Samba.
Wait, how is this lack of a feature a "design limitation" of Samba? They don't provide any source for this claim, and I very much doubt that it's a design limitation. I can believe it exists, but I find it hard to believe something in the design of Samba would prevent them from adding this feature.
There were a few things in TFA that seem plausible, but it really looks like they lose a lot in translation. I have to ask, what is the potential audience for such an article? I usually only see two types of Mac users, the Unix people who gave up on Linux, and the "It's easier, it Just Works" people who gave up on Windows. The "Just Works" people don't care about Samba, and if OS X won't play nice with Win7, they'll either blame Win7 or ask an Apple "Genius" to just fix it. The Unix people are going to be perfectly capable of using Samba if they want, and would probably like a lot more information about what's actually going on, including why GPLv3 is an issue.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
At work here we are a mixed environment. We are Mainly Windows and Linux, with some Solaris servers, but adding Macs as well, and a NetApp as central storage. Gives us some rather interesting challenges. One of them is dealing with file sharing on the network. NFS only really works well for the UNIX clients and is a fucking disaster security wise. Apple doesn't license AFP to NetApp and Windows has stopped supporting it. So that leaves CIFS for a lot of stuff.
So, a couple interesting things related to CIFS came to light not long ago. The first was playing with Macs. They suck at it, horrible performance. In 10.4 they couldn't even talk to the NetApp with CIFS at all, they could talk to Windows servers but slowly. NFS worked but it was a disaster trying to get permissions to work right.
We figured this was in part because they use Samba which is not necessarily the fastest thing out there, and was originally designed for reverse engineering SMB, not a reference CIFS implementation like the NetApp.
So then we get a new central storage unit, basically a SuperMicro board and chassis with a big RAID card and a bunch of cheap SATA drives. Intended to be cheaper, less reliable, storage that can be used in addition to the NetApp when more space is needed but backups are not important. Good CIFS performance was a must so Windows Server was a consideration but we figured we'd give Samba under Linux a spin first, easier to make NFS work that way.
Well it works fantastic. Full wire speed (which is gig in this case) transfers, no problems at all. Just as fast and as easy as if it was a Windows system there, the clients never know the difference.
Well, maybe Apple isn't interested in this. Why not? Because they seem to like to make anything not Apple look bad. They are grudgingly compatible, because they have to be, but they seem to half-ass it to the maximum extent possible. Quicktime on Windows is a great example. Compare it to QT on the Mac and it is amazing how bad it is.
It isn't an OS-X limitation either, ADmitMac has a first rate CIFS implementation that we use and love. It just costs money.
So maybe that is part of it as well. You've gotten Samba to a point it is really fast, that Samba to a Windows system is as fast as Windows to Windows, and Apple doesn't like it. They want Macs to be faster to Mac servers via AFP, and slower to Windows systems via CIFS.
"You're either for software freedom or your not."
You either like imposing false dichotomies, or you don't.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Wow... I'm not even sure how to respond to this, exactly?
The reasons for boycotting the purchase of any Sony products are numerous and clear-cut. They loaded spyware on people's computers as part of their "copy protection" mechanism. They continuously try to force people to buy into unnecessary Sony-proprietary variants of industry standard media formats by requiring them in their devices (Sony "memory stick" vs. SD card for example). They sell products with certain, promised functionality that they proceed to take away down the road (PS3 firmware updates removing Linux boot capability). The list goes on. But in Apple's case? I fail to see any justification, beyond ones that have pretty much always been there - if those issues were so important to you. Yes, Apple likes to sell you a complete "solution" vs. only an operating system, only a piece of hardware, or only an application. Yes, that means especially for the electronic devices/gadgets running iOS (vs. full-blown computer systems), they will put up some artificial constraints on what you can/can't do with it. But NO, there's nothing indicating Apple is on a mission to lock down the whole ecosystem so only THEY can provide you with software!
People are WAY over-reacting, IMHO. Much of this stems from people making wild assumptions after Apple offered an "App Store" for OS X, parallel to what they've got for iOS devices. Big deal!?! This just makes sense as "low hanging fruit" for Apple to profit from. If you already have the back-end infrastructure in place for that type of online store, and you've got developers making things for iOS that they can easily port to OSX -- why not port over the store itself and give people one more option there? That doesn't mean Apple suddenly has ideas to change everything so nobody can put a piece of code on a Mac unless it's obtained via that App Store application!
By the same token, what does ANY of that have to do with this current news story? Sounds to me like Apple's simply saying, "Hey... GPL3 is going to give us some licensing hassles if we start adding some networking functionality to devices like the iPad in the future. Let's get off Samba codebase and move to something where we won't lose that flexibility."
But if not contributing to car accidents is your primary concern, you could simply not make cars. Likewise, if you're more concerned about your code not being used in a bad way, than about it being used at all, why write it?
The people who make their livings in the car or software industries aren't going to like this.
You could take that further and say if reducing drain on the world's resources and reducing pollution are your goal, you could simply bury yourself alive.
It would have the side effect of reducing your exposure to car accidents as well! A win-win situation if I ever heard of one.
Putting moderation advice in your
Does anyone have any actual information on why Apple is dumping Samba?
After approximately 37,249 posts for/against/discussing the GPL and the bad reporting in TFA, I think we've got that covered. But it still leaves the real question unanswered.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
>> but Apple is one of the better corporate citizens when it comes to open source and the end custome
ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Samba (by choosing GPLv3) wants to require Apple (in this case) to provide source code to Samba to anyone who uses OSX. The fundamental assumption in that paragraph is that a user can do something useful with the code.
My grandmother can't. Even if Apple shipped the full source on each CD it would make her no more free or less free, no more self sufficient or dependent. It would be about as useful as giving her a book written in Sanskrit.
But wait the GPL folks will argue, sure, most people won't be able to use it, but what about the programmers? Well, I'm a programmer. I want my Mac to read and write windows file shares. If it doesn't work, I'm going to open a ticket with Apple and make them fix it, even if the code is right there on my computer. The GPL folks fail to release that in many cases working and bug free trump the ability to modify; at least in the real world.
In a standard commercial world what the GPLv3 does is not create more freedom. It creates a burden on companies developing GPLv3 software to set up an entire distribution system for the benefit of a fraction of their user base. Like well under 1%. Probably under .1%. Maybe under .01% for a lot of products. When you have a million slaves it is hollow to tell them they are "more free" because you managed to free one of them.
But the real kicker here is that Samba is still free. Any OSX user can download the code, compile it on their OSX machine, and use it. If GPLv3 makes any sense it is on something like the kernel, or device drivers where various proprietary magic is required to make things go, and without the company distributing that information you really are screwed. To require a company to redistribute source to a user land program on a POSIX OS really is just lunacy. Anyone who wants more recent Samba than ships with OSX is already downloading it from Samba!
The BSD folks started to get it more right, and then backed off. The original 4 clause BSD license, with the so-called "advertising" clause was close to a good idea. The problem with it was that it really said advertising. Like if Apple made a TV commercial they would need to have some announcer read the names of every open source package included in OSX. The solution of simply removing it wasn't good either.
What was needed was a slightly different clause, requiring the user to be notified that they are using BSD licensed software, and where to find more information. One can imagine the MOTD on a brand new Unix system saying something like "This system contains BSD licensed software, for more information see /usr/share/bsd.txt. The file would contain not only the license, but the URL of each project involved, the name of the software, and version installed. The user is now aware of the open source project, and knows where to get the source code. That would have done more to promote open source software than either
removing the various clauses (the BSD "solution"), or adding onerous provisions (the GPL "solution").
At the end of the day though, it's technical folks trying to solve a business problem they don't understand and don't think should exist. They want to oversimplify others businesses, and want to believe that every business should be run the way they want. Every company should just release all source, instructions on how to compile it yourself, and so on. That's straight up idealism with a healthy dose of ignorance. In going for a 100% solution, the open source world keeps turning down a 95% solution, and ending up with a 5% solution. A pretty stupid trade off, if you ask me.
There is one up side. I've never found Samba particularly stable, and so if Apple has to re-write it I have every faith they will actually do a better job, and give me one less reason to use Samba.
This whole article sounds kinda fishy to me:
Developers report that Apple has internally officially announced that it will pull Samba from Mac OS X Lion and Lion Server, and replace it with Windows networking software developed by Apple.
Where is the citation for that snippet? Given that they currently heavily rely on not only Samba but also are pretty far in the development of Lion without replacing it, I think this is some uninformed blogger trying to get hits on his Google AdSense account.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Disclaimer: For all intended purposes, the name "Apple" in the text below can be substituted for "Microsoft", "Oracle", or the name of any other company that sells closed-source, commercial software.
Excerpt from the GPL FAQ web page:
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.
If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.
Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure agreement?
No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.
So my guess here is no, GPL does not prevent commercial use as many have already said. Also just a guess, it's the third and fourth answer here that bothers Apple. They do seem to be keen on preventing anyone on customizing their platform or replicating it in any way. As an example, the Mac OS X license prevents a user from installing it on any other hardware and they have gone legally after companies that did as little as enabling hardware for that purpose.
While not an Apple fan I do like (and use) some of their products. Still I cannot defend them when it comes to openness simply because they are not. Is that "evil"? Not necessarily. The ultimate purpose of any business is to make money. They do that as they find fit. Ultimately, as any other business they choose how much of their product should be free and how much is a revenue generator.
There seems to be a tendency in the software industry to expect companies giving out product for free. Yet we don't expect the same from other industries. I don't expect Nissan to give me a free car, I don't expect the grocery store to give out free bread. Software is a product. It's developed with investment and effort. Yes, in some cases, it's a good business strategy to give it out for free but in some it might not be.
We must keep in mind that GPL in any of its versions is not a political or social statement. It's rather a means of distributing software, of getting to the market and therefore enabler of a specific business model. It's a bit harsh to say someone is evil because they have a different business model. Nor is Apple limiting anyone's freedom. You have the freedom not to use any of their products.
Aniti-GPL people are morons about this point. If I write stuff, I'll use whatever license I want. If that's the GPL, well that's awesome. I've never understood why you are telling me I cannot license software however I want.
All that'll happen here will be : Apple introduces security vulnerabilities into their SMB code.
Who cares? Ain't nobody gonna run a publicly accessible SMB server, especially not on Apple hardware. Are there even any publicly accessible web servers on Apple hardware. lol Ain't nobody gonna write viruses that exploit Apple's cruddy SMB code. Apple hasn't contributed jack to samba development, btw.
Apple's customers will not suffer. Samba will not suffer. Microsoft won't really benefit. etc. Who cares? Seriously.
As an aside, there is one big fucking reason for licensing code under the GPL v3 : All the patent restrictions motivate some minority of companies to license your code directly, avoiding the GPL v3. Yet conversely the GPL v3 does not obstruct widespread corporate adoption. For me, that's a winning combination that ensures my continued usage of the GPL v3.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
A programming friends comment on the subject, the truth comes out. "I don't give two shits about users, I care about other developers who use and contribute to my code. No user is going to contribute anything except support requests. I'm not interested in supporting freeloaders, I'm interested in protecting the freedoms of other programmers." So maybe this is why programmers that support GPL v3 don't like Apple, because Apple cares about the end users while programmers don't give a rats ass off of the free loaders. For the first time in my life im going to be thankful we have Microsoft and Apple because a world under the control of people with these attitudes would be horrible. At least some one is looking out for the users.
I should repackage Samba for the 10.7 and set up donations, like the way Xming does it. The more Apple removes software from its OS, the more development opportunities, right?
FYI: Apple is soundly beating Microsoft as "Worst Company in America" in The Consumerist's poll:
http://consumerist.com/2011/03/worst-company-in-america-round-one-apple-vs-microsoft.html
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
With all the level-headed commentary correcting the parent post (in just about every thread on this story), how did the parent post avoid getting moderated down to zero as a troll or flamebait? The parent post so thoroughly misunderstands relevant issues at hand here ("open source" versus free software, misunderstanding commercialism, saying GPL'd software is as "bad" as proprietary software, etc.) yet the parent post shows up as +3 Insightful (and went to +4 Insightful in the time I wrote this post). I know /. moderation is unreliable but I guess I would have liked to see something closer to the truth than that.
Digital Citizen
This is close to an admission by Apple that they have copied Samba code in OSX.
It would be interesting to do a bitwise comparison of Samba compiled code to OSX. How much is copied? Where is it?
Just Curious.
Seriously, if you try to promote freedom and free code, you have to allow people to use it how they want. If you try to define what's allowed and try to get people to do or not to do what YOU want them, you aren't promoting free code. Your code is just as "bad" as proprietary code. True freedom is letting people do what they want, even if they have different values than you.
GPL is like promoting free speech until someone saids something YOU don't like. True freedom is letting people do what they want. That includes making money with the code, or using that code in a larger proprietary code. If you do not allow this you're a hypocrite.
It's backwards thinking and does no good to free and open source movement, as companies won't even be considering using it. GPL alone has created a large problem. It has made companies associate open source with huge legal trouble, and generally will make companies avoid open sourcing and open source code completely just because of GPL. They rather get the easier and guaranteed legally good alternative, which is licensing from other companies like MPEG-LA for H.264 and Microsoft for WP7 and so on.. Yes, it costs money. But when dealing with companies, it's a lot easier for them and solves many troubles that the hypocrites at GPL headquearters have caused for the whole open source movement. This is why I support true open source licenses that allow both free and proprietary use. They are the real free licenses, not GPL, and unless we deal with that hypocricy Microsoft will always win. I'm personally disgusted by this move by Samba team, as they're the ones that try to make it easy to both move away from Windows and integrate with other operating systems. GPL is bad.
There is nothing in the GPL v2 or v3 that would prohibit Apple from including Samba. GPLv3 specifically allows it to be included even if other parts are not GPL. What cannot be done, however, is slap a bigger license over the top of included GPL'd programs that would circumvent the GPL. All Apple would have to do is issue a statement that says something to effect that portions of OSX are released under a GPLv3 license. Then list those portions and the actual require GPL verbage and make the source code available. That's no different than Windows having it's license and the pre-installed apps having theirs.
GPLv3 is not the problem. Companies wanting to use GPLv3 code without adhering to the licensing agreements are the problem. I am curious, though, since the Microsoft networking stuff is copyrighted and patented, how Apple developed a clean room copy without resorting to using the Samba code. If they based their own version on anything they learned from Samba, then they are still, in fact in violation of the GPL. Of course, that would be an argument for a different day and time.
In short, GPLv3 is just an excuse being used to deflect attention from Apple's own internal decisions.
.
I'm surprised Apple was able to replace Samba. Hasn't it taken decades of reverse engineering to figure out.
Unless Apple looked at the Samba code to figure out how to write their own.
Without signing keys or whatever else is needed to run the binaries, you have sources which you cannot use for their intended purpose. You (or someone else you hire) can't fix a bug and produce a new binary you can replace the original with, or even use at all. It is the end of the line for that source code. DRM and keys are the equivalent of the terminator gene in Monsanto products. The source given to you, sitting there and looking pretty is all it can do.
To Stallman the GPL is the most moral. He compared proprietary developers to criminals after all. What a loon.
Please explain me how a clause that is specially added so end users still have the freedom to hack, even if the constructor decide to use signing keys, isn't about freedom ?
The freedoms that GPL is fighting for are the end user's. Not Apple's.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Not that I agree that the GPL is legitimate, since personally I don't believe in ANY intellectual property, BUT, we do have copyright law which permits the existence of proprietary software, which is something I disapprove of.
In that light I see the GPL as an attempt to use that same law to create this 'microcosm' where software is freely distributed, with the added little perk of NOT ALLOWING proprietary code to free ride on in, unlike licenses like BSD who just don't give a fuck.
I call it competition between a hypotetical world with IP and one without.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
Exactly. Liberty does not mean that everyone gets to do whatever they want. In a perfect world this might work, but in reality the desires of one party will infringe on the rights of another.
Reminds me of elementary school arguments. Somebody inevitably says "This is a free country! I can do whatever I want!" No, that's not what it means. Unfortunately, many adults never learn what liberty and freedom really are, and keep this quite naive viewpoint.
Regardless of what you armchair lawyers think about whether the GPLv3 allows or disallows commercial use, no sane software company would ever use GPLv3 software.
Period.
True freedom is letting people do what they want.
In the beginning there was true freedom. Since Apple (and Microsoft and Adobe and Oracle and...) are companies trying to make a profit they just take what OpenSource has to offer, make a profit out of it and never give anything back. Thus, GPL is a evolution of the "true freedom" concept. It restricts the freedom in only one respect: free software shall never become unfree.
On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
"Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license."
WTF. They are making 'open' software to support sharing between systems, so they want to restrict the use of the software! They should be removing restrictions, not adding them.
It seems clear that as licenses become more strict, the Samba team will choose to use them. Who knows what restrictions will be imposed by GPLv5 or GPLv6. It's better to move to non proprietary, open foundations like BSD if you are developing for the long haul.
What commercial developer needs to get sucked down the GPLvX black hole.
This is a text book example on how the GPL is not a "trap" for big companies. The terms changed. A company disagreed with the changes. And they opted out of future usage.
Is it the right thing to do with lawyers? Yes. No fighting or disguised usage; they quit SAMBA "cold turkey" and all lawyers are happy.
Is it right thing to do with SAMBA developers? Yep. They didn't fork the codebase and create a competitive SAMBA GPLv2 effort.
Is it the right thing with Apple developers? Probably. Some older features are missing, so relying on pre-Active directory features will be troubling. For those who really need SAMBA itself (rather than just the features), Apple's GPLv2 forks are public and the GPLv3 work could be taken up by interested companies, researchers, or hobbyists.
Is this the right thing with users? That's what we don't know. Will the new system be secure enough? Will it be integrated well enough? Will end users be oblivious to its replacement? If yes, that's the final word on whether this was the right move at this time for this company. If no, then that shows SAMBA is non-trivial code, that can't be easily replaced.
IMHO, that's exactly how disagreements with GPL licensed code should be resolved.
I suspect what Apple does not like is this part of GPLv3:
If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license, and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a publicly available network server or other readily accessible means, then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent license to downstream recipients. “Knowingly relying” means you have actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that country that you have reason to believe are valid.
Here's the nightmare scenario for Apple:
Better to get an alternative ready now, before someone shows up with a patent.
Er... people are not going to use OSX as samba domain controllers. This is an non-issue.
GPL is why Linux won over all the BSD's long ago (or so netcraft confirms).
Recall SunOS and Ultrix?
They were far far ahead of Linux at one point.
Because the BSD license didn't require them to share back, it was easy for those using them not to share back; and as a result Linux improved faster. Same will happen to Apple. It's wonderful for them now that they're very profitable and can hire whomever they need --- just as it was for Sun. But if Apple ever struggles and their recruiters can't attract whichever developers they want; they'll stall like all the other proprietary BSD forks did.
It seems like it's taken the folks over and Samba many years to get a level of compatibility and stability out of their product (what, with MS changing things on purpose all the time and all).
How is Apple going to fair in that regard? It seems like they just opened pandora's box...attempting compatibility with SMB or CIFS seems like a pretty huge undertaking.
the GPL has the practical effect of ruining any mechanism for monetizing the software.
That is completely untrue. Red Hat is a successful commercial enterprise that uses mostly GPL software.
It would be even easier for Apple to make money on Samba because 99.9% of their users don't know how to download, compile, and configure Samba for their devices. 99% of them probably wouldn't even know it was an option: No one reads the fine print.
You can only "sell" a GPL'd piece of software if you are the author,
Untrue. You can sell GPL software as much as you want. You just have to make sure the source is also available.
Apple Corp is just a bunch of assholes who do not want to contribute to open source software.
There are two GPL licenses and they are both copyleft licenses. There is the ordinary and there is the lesser. The lesser GPL (LGPL from here on in) is used on software you want to allow people to recompile/include in their own closed source works they can then resell without the consent of the copyright holder.
On the other hand, the ordinary GPL states that you cannot include the work in closed source works, only other open source works. With both, if you attempt to branch the work, the new work will still be covered by the license used to create the original work.
So to sum it up:
LGPL -> can be used in new closed source products and resold. For example AForge, an imaging framework, uses a LGPL.
GPL -> can only be used in other GPL style licensed products. For example Quake3 source. You cannot use (compile) this in a closed source project.
The FSF wants you to use the GPL to force more people to write open source software. I'm all for that.
From gnu.org:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL:
IMHO Apple is an enemy to open source software. They will drink from the open source font, but when it comes to opening their own software forget it. They hijack FreeBSD and turn it into an abomination of closed source commercialism, flying in the face of everything the copyleft license stands for. That's why instead of just switching their whole operation to open source ordinary GPL they scurry away and remove ordinary GPL software and scour the internet for other LGPL suckers they can suck the life out of to pad their own pockets.
Apple, stop it with the free ride, it took millions of man hours that you didn't pay for to build the software you so arrogantly call OSX. I love the prorogation of FOSS but I hate the way Apple treats everyone. Customers, fans, foes, they are all scum to Apple, to be used and discarded when they become a liability, Samba in this case, but there are many more. If Apple were any friend of open source they would not just use open source, they would be open source and license their software using the GPL.
Apple is so damned good at writing networking software ...
The necessity to jail break things you bought and paid for in order to use them is the main new thing prevented by gpl3. No tivoization, no locked handsets, etc.
Companies are complying with the letter of gpl2-- they will provide the source to i.e., the kernel, but the owners of the devices are still restricted from freely using the hardware they bought and paid for, by these companies requiring things like signed kernels to boot.
Because total freedom includes the freedom to deny freedom to others.
Total freedom is equivalent to some kind of combination of anarchy and libertarian anarcho-capitalism.
It ends up being pretty oppressive for the non-swift or non-bold or non-ruthless.
So some systems, like GPL, which are trying to promote the "most amount of freedom for the
most people" have to have some consitutional rules to guard that overall fair state.
In a way it's analogous to a market. Many are advocates of a "free market",
but of course a free market cannot function without rules (against insider trading, against hacking the trading system,
against fraudulent financial statements or prospectuses) and punishments for violating the rules,
so again, not totally free. But seems to work. That's the key. A level of freedom designed carefully to
conserve the most amount of freedom for the largest number of people and to have it continue to work
despite people trying to game and corrupt the system.
Clever if you ask me, and laudable.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Im a End user and I cant use open source software on my preferred device despite the fact the code is accessible and free for all to see.
As an end user GPLv3 doesn't stop you to use the software on whichever device you choose.
GPL (all versions) are copyright license. They only kick in when *distributing* code, not using it. Copyright law says you can't copy without proper license, GPL explain what you need to do to obtain the right to copy (give the code with the same freedom as you received it).
You can run GPL code on any device you choose. Including on Macs running OSX, including on iPhones running iOS, including linux powered toasters. If you can't currently run it on a non-jailbroken iDevice, this is due to the limitations that Apple puts on you.
You'll still be able to use Samba on Mac OS X Lion and even on future versions, as long as Apple doesn't introduce some limitations that prevent you from running arbitrary applications. You could also run Samba on your iPhone / iPod / iPad, but that will require you to either pay for the developer's kit (so you can compile, sign and upload your own code) or jail-breaking the device (so you can run unsigned code).
Apple is not interested in using Samba in iDevice, not because the GPLv3 forbids them to per se (there's no "Apple is forbiden to use this" clause), but because the whole concept behind GPL is to always ensure that the end user has the freedom to hack this code, and apple doesn't want it. Apple want to control what runs on a device, and keep it locked behind signing keys. GPLv3 would require them to hand out said keys.
That's why they prefer BSD type licensing. BSD allows them to get the code, but allows them to limit the freedom of end users and stop the end-user from doing what they want. They use chunks of FreeBSD code into OS-X and iOS. Code that they got for free. But they can lock this code on iDevice and prevent you, the end user to further modify it. Apple want to have the lunch and eat it too.
So if you look at the details, it's all Apple's fault because :
- They don't want users to do what they want. They block it with DRM.
- GPL licenses are designed with the purpose to always let the users do what they want (as long as this freedom is passed to the next in the copy-chain)
- Apple prefers no to use GPL code because it interferes with their intentions of limiting the freedom of the end user.
Is the point of the GPL to protect and share knowledge (code) or to force every one to operate under Richard Stallmans vision. GPL v3 is political. GPLv2 was about the code.
The point of the GPL, the whole point of the GPL, is to make sure that anyone can do whatever he/she wants with GPLed code, as long as this freedom is passed on to the next in chain. There's no intent to protect anything, just intent to be sure that anyone gets the same right to play with the stuff. Every single end user out there should always be able to hack the code, if wanted. Nobody should prevent this and restrict this freedom from the end-user.
GPL makes sure that all get the same freedom.
GPLv2 makes sure that all get the same freedom, even if a company uses patents while still distributing the source code as required by GPLv1
GPLv3 makes sure that all get the same freedom, even if a company uses DRM while still distributing the source code as required by GPLv2.
GPLv3 didn't introduce anything political.
It's just the hardware vendors finding new way to abid to the letter of the GPL (and provide a copy of the source to the end user), while at the same time finding new ways to circumvent the spirit of the license (GPL is about letting the end users do what he/she want, but the manufacturer finds a way to prevent it).
The latest invention of manufacturer is DRM. You get the code, but you can't do what you want with it, because if you want to modify it, you must sign it before uploading it (as the device doesn't run non-signed code) and you don't have t
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
You're wrong. The big 3 BSD projects all innovate and improve. The only reason we're behind is that linux got a head start due to the UCB lawsuit years ago. Think about how many people work on the linux kernel and how many times they have to rewrite things because they rushed into something without thinking it out. Linus does a good job, but other people screw things up a lot. BSD projects are usually much more mature. They have older developers. They like software engineering.
I'll give you that my project is not going that fast and a few of the other smaller BSDs, but trying to say that FreeBSD or NetBSD is slow is just insane. They don't target the same things as the Linux community.
Apple will drop OS X for iOS at some point. It's inevitable. The question is will MidnightBSD, PC-BSD, GhostBSD or some other desktop focused BSD catch up to Linux or Mac OS at some point and get competative. I don't know.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
If history is any guide, the Apple replacement project is likely to be released as an open source project, under a BSD style license.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Who the hell uses OSX anymore? The apple fan base gets a lot of publicity but its mainly gadgets not their computers. Their Server offerings were so awful everyone dropped them anyway and went back to Linux. This, really does not matter, but it shows the beginning of the end for Apple. Though the NeXT based kernel concept is cute, nobody really cares anymore, especially about anything to do with BSD - Monolithic kernels won the war when they started to develop good realtime characteristics.
Yes, the GPL annoys me too. But so does Apple. :)
Missed that typo I must of been holding down the shift key.
LGPL does not equal the GPL
Momento Mori
GPLv3...which prevents Apple from using the software commercially.
I thought we killed that old canard back in 1999. There's nothing in GPLv3 that's substantially more anti-"commercial" than in GPLv2. Actually, GPLv3 is a lot better in a lot of ways. For example, if you screw up and violate its terms, GPLv3 isn't terminated permanently, unlike GPLv2.
I have to laugh, because Apple does not decide here. It's the FreeBSD project that aims towards LLVM since long time already. Earlier when Apple "decided" about using ZFS, it was FreeBSD that implemented it. Apple had to remove it again, because of license restrictions that work well only for free projects.
It is really stupid to say "Apple decided" because their system is in large parts derived from independent projects. They don't decide about anything there. They have to accept it.
How can you say it does not when it clearly does. Can I get GPL v3 Software for my iphone. NO I cant. Its not compatible with the distribution method.
Yes, you can.
You can *GET* GPLv3 software, and try to upload it into your iPhone :
You can download the source, compile it, and try to upload it (either by paying for the SDK or by jailbreaking the phone).
The GPLv3 will only prevent you from publishing binaries that other users can't modify themselves.
So, if you go through the SDK route, you can't publish the binaries, because they need to be signed to be modified and you can't publish the signing key together.(Thank you, Apple !).
If you go through the jail breaking route, you can publish everything you want, as other users aren't prevented to replace component of your software.
So yes that clause does affect me the end user. Good open source software is not on the App store or not for long because of this. Even though the code is free for all to use the distribution method isn't compatible.
What you can't get is precompiled GPLv3 software from the App Store. Because by Apple's design the whole iPhone ecosystem is specially designed so you can't hack your software and you can't do what you want with hardware and software you own. And the GPL is - by design - here to enforce that the end user can have this freedoms to hack.
The whole GPL license is about making sure that the end user can modify the software no matter what. That was the reason it was created back then, that's how it still works today.
The iPhone/iPod/iPad are closed platforms. There are designed so you can't modify the software. This is clearly exactly the opposite of the idea behind GPL and Free Software.
Don't put the blame on GPL for what's done by Apple being control-maniacs and prevent the user doing anything which isn't approved by Saint-Jobs. It's not RMS's fault that iPhones are pieces of crap which need to be jailbroken before being anything close to useful.
If you're not happy, vote with your wallet. Buy phone without such crappy restriction.
Mine is WebOS powered. I just type a command if I want to install non-HP/Palm-approved software.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
OK, there is this long discussion above about freedom.
The creators of the GPL(v3) have one party in mind when they talk about freedom. It is not the developers, it is not the businesses. It is about the users of the software. They want to give as much freedom to the user first. This means the user of the software should always get the source of the software he is using so he/she does not depend on one vendor. There are some clauses about patents too, but they are also about giving the users of the software the ability to take the source and go to an other developer and having them add or remove other functions the original developer didn't want to do.
The BSD-license is about giving the developer the most freedom. They can sell it commercially, adopt it as something new and don't give anyone else the source.
Apparently Apple isn't about giving users the most freedom, but I guess you already knew that. ;-)
New things are always on the horizon
Maybe it's because Apple doesn't sign their paycheck.
Maybe it's because they like the protection of the GPLv3 more than they would like their hugely popular software to run on the Apple platform as well.
One thing is certain though. They don't need to justify their choice. If you don't like GPLv3, don't use their software or fork from the GPLv2.
Dang. So he doesn't have source? RHEL breaking the license now?!?!?!
No, he gets RH licenses which INCLUDES THE CODE.
It doesn't force them to do squat. If anything, it's like the MPEG-LA patent pool where the price of admission is to license to all the others in the pool.
MPEG-LA aren't being bashed for "forcing" anyone to license their patended stuff.
And the payment for using someone else's code is that you have to obey the license. As opposed to Apple or Microsoft et al where you have to pay AND obey the license.
So why are you whinging? Not paying enough?
If that's so, and I have no objection to what you're saying (the NeXT/GCC affair demonstrates why Bradley Kuhn says "Apple lawyers have a pathological hatred of GPL"): should free software hackers consider forking CUPS or keeping track of the latest GPL'd version of CUPS with an eye toward forking should CUPS' license become non-free? Apple owns CUPS now so I think it's reasonable to wonder about the future of the print system a lot of free software distributions have become dependent upon.
Digital Citizen
Then you shouldn't have any problem listing these things in detail. I doubt what you're saying is true. I think it's far more likely Eben Moglen's description is the case: (paraphrased) announce GPLv4 and people will love GPLv3 like a brother. This is what happened with GPLv2: when it was announced work began on GPLv3, suddenly GPLv2 was loved.
Some of what Apple does reveals Apple to be just another proprietor who built their fortunes on free software: they know they can't go far without software freedom, and they want to treat the free software community as a market, but they don't want to behave as a member of the free software community.
As for being "quite happy to contribute to GCC", that simply is not true. NeXT committed copyright infringement and GCC's copyright holder (FSF) compelled them to comply with GCC's license (GPLv2). Bradley Kuhn describes it succinctly, "Apple lawyers have a pathological hatred of GPL, which he believes comes directly down from Steve Jobs, who began his dislike of GPL when he tried, while at NeXT, to distribute a proprietary front-end for GCC for Objective-C." and Richard Stallman talks of this in the essay Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism explaining why GCC can compile Objective-C:
NeXT was lucky they were dealing with a copyright holder who (then as now) seeks compliance with the license above monetary compensation and court appearances. NeXT was also lucky that, at the time, they were able to correct their illegality outside the spotlight of publicity. Apple owns NeXT now and we're talking about the same person in charge at both companies. Apple would go on to commit copyright infringement against the FSF again in May 2010 distributing GNU Go in violation of the GPL (by adding additional restrictions on top of GPLv2 which that license disallows) but that time chose to cease distributing GNU Go.
Digital Citizen
"However, a statement of the form "You're either A or not-A" is a true dichotomy, as the given options are complementary."
The English language is not precise enough for that to actually work in practice. (I suspect all human language suffers from this problem (more accurately, I suspect it's a human problem, not a language problem, per se), but that's another discussion.) In this particular case:
"You're either for software freedom or you're not."
There are multiple definitions/interpretations/POVs/etc. for "software freedom", and further implications and subtleties within those.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
once you've come to an agreement on the meaning of "software freedom"
Aye, and there's the rub. Most complicated issues quickly get into an infinite regression trying to define terms.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.