Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 26th Mar 2011 02:00 UTC
Mac OS X When you run smbd -V on your Snow Leopard installation, you'll see it's running SAMBA version 3.0.28a-apple. While I'm not sure how much difference the "-apple" makes, version 3.0.28a is old. Very old. In other words, it's riddled with bugs. Apple hasn't updated SAMBA in 3 years, and for Lion, they're dumping it altogether for something homegrown. The reason? SAMBA is now GPLv3.
Permalink for comment 468041
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Lack of History
by oiaohm on Sun 27th Mar 2011 09:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not about patents"
oiaohm
Member since:
2009-05-30

They'd only need to give each user a machine signature so that he could use his own modified versions.

However, Apple makes money from not letting users run any software at all without money going into the company's pockets, so they obviously can't distribute GPLv3 software.

All things considered, I think the GPLv3 patent clauses do more harm than good. The only thing they achieve is keeping "free" software from being used at all.

Even "good" companies acquiring patents for self-defense have to avoid it. If Google released a WebM codec under GPLv3 all the protection they get from their related patents against the MPEG mafia is lost as soon as soon as MPEG companies download a copy.

In fact no. Read GPLv3 its cover disappears if you are part of an attack. Even a edge form. So Google would be still fully free to use there patents fully to counter an attack.

Yes there is a clause particularly allowing "software patent retaliation" in GPLv3 if attacked.

GPLv3 forbids patent aggression. If MPEG mafia download and use VP8 and it was under GPLv3. They would find themselves locked from attacking VP8. Of course other GPLv3 programs they don't use they could still attack and not end up in a battle over VP8 as long as those other programs did not relate to developers of VP8.

IP laws are like nuclear weapons, there is no way to use them for good, the only winning move is not to play.

Playing the wargame is the basic error of the FSF and their licenses.


GPLv3 patent grants is nicer than this http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/

This is how foolish you are being. GPLv3 just places the mostly standard patent grant agreements in the copyright document. So you don't get caught with your pants down. Ie something can be BSD but that does not have the patent grant so you include that in your program and you get you tailed sued off.

http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html Patent grant word in the Apache version 2.0 license covers the same as GPLv3.

Basically the Patent grant stuff is fud. BSD and MIT you have to find the matching patent grant. Legally you are safer and better off with GPLv3.

Also due to the legal wording in GPLv2 patent grant maybe required to conform with GPLv2. No one has tested this in court.

GPLv3 just really lays out the rules. Rules that could possibly still apply if you are using GPLv2 with patents.

The only major change really is the anti-tivo sections.

Edited 2011-03-27 09:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4