"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: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:2006-04-04
Perhaps rather than 'inclusiveness' as a goal, the stress should be on a level playing field.
Until the patent agreements started springing up, everyone who contributed to GPL projects did so on the same terms as everyone else. Joe the programmer working in his spare time was on the same footing as a development team from IBM. Each could contribute and know that their contributions could not be taken away from them or improved upon without them receiving the benefits of those improvements.
The patent deals tilted this landscape. Now one entity could contribute to a GPL project and not be in the same ship as other contributors. Entities like Novell can now use the works of others with more safety than the original author! Not exactly something that would encourage those others with less protection from the MSs of the world to want to continue to contribute when their contributions (and any improvements on their contributions) are more advantageous to their competitors than they are to themselves.
One of the aims of GPL3 is to re-level the playing field. Any contributor now is protected as much as any other, so anyone is safe to contribute without losing the potential benefits of their contribution or having their contributions become more valuable to a competitor than themselves
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.