"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 view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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:2006-08-26
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.
On the contrary, it's entirely logical, because the licenses in question are based on copyleft [1]:
---------------------------
When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is no legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a single program. This is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licenses: each of them says, “If you include code under this license in a larger program, the larger program must be under this license too.” There is no way to make them compatible. [2]
---------------------------
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.
Nonsense. E.g., using that logic one could argue that free software developers should surrender all of their copyrights to the public domain. That would be more inclusive of firms such as Microsoft that want total exploitation of such software.
Indeed, while inclusiveness is a fine goal, it but one of many criteria. How about true and false? Suppose I think the earth is flat, and you don't, but, for the sake of inclusiveness, you adopt my opinion. Where would that get you?
History is littered with examples of disasters in the name of inclusiveness. Inclusiveness may be good, but there are likely far more important criteria, such as, you know, the merit of an opinion.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
[2]: http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html
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.