"Forget software politics for a minute - what does the new Samba licensing mean for the version you're actually running, and for the distribution that packages it for you? Samba maintainer Jeremy Allison explains."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-13
Not to nitpick, but if people use the original FSF version of the GPL2, as was pointed out in the interview, there is no issue; the issues only come in when people have released software under modified, not forward compatible versions, such as Linux is. So don't blame the FSF for this.
Edited 2007-07-18 23:17
Member since:2005-12-28
Member since:2005-07-08
Remind me again how "free" I am...
I think we have enough people reminding us how "free" we are, how proud we should be of that, and how important it is that we bring this "freedom" to the rest of the world.
I think we should have more people reminding us how "unfree" we are, how concerned we should be, and how we should learn to coexist peacefully with those that have a different idea of what it means to be free.
There have been early skirmishes on the border of free software and proprietary software, and the GPLv3 intends to clear things up. You can choose to accept or reject the idea of exclusive patent agreements and live on the corresponding side of the fence. You have to choose. You can't mix exclusive patent licensing with free software.
This is a problem that needs to be solved today, while the two cultures are first learning about one another. If we let the proprietary culture infect the upper echelons of the free software community, we will be divided, we will be marginalized, and we will become radicalized.
We don't have to like each other. We don't have to agree on what it means to be free. We can have different visions for the future of software and computing. We can compete with each other, but we have to compete by playing our respective games.
The commercial Linux elite can make a lot of money by playing the proprietary software game. But free software is our community's valuable resource. We can't watch as our corrupt commercial representatives sell our rights away so that everybody but the free software community gets to benefit from the legal use of our software.
Member since:2005-12-28
I would argue that Free Software has the opportunity it has at this time exactly because there are "Elitist" companies (that employ developers of "free" software by the way)marketing and selling the software that we love so dearly. The movement itself started it, but the companies can take it to the next level of exposure.
It seems the game is patents. Since we all know the free software developers own the copyrights to their work. So since the game is patents and these "elitists" are playing the game with patents, lobby to change the patent system/game. Hate the game, not the playa. Dont make 2 different games that are mutually exclusive.
Now back to my point... My point was that it seems rather silly to make a next generation license incompatible with existing licenses that are based on the same idea. And as a previous poster stated, I mis-read something and thanked them for pointing it out. My opinion is that it is better to be inclusive as opposed to exclusive, no matter what side you are on, no matter the subject. As I type this I think we are on the same page here... But I cant tell with all the flag waving.
Member since:
2005-12-28
Remind me again how "free" I am with 2 licenses that basically say the same thing but are incompatible? Just seems silly to me. But to each their own, Samba is still great software!