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.
Thread beginning with comment 467917
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Brynet
by brynet on Sat 26th Mar 2011 03:36 UTC
brynet
Member since:
2010-03-02

There is nothing free about the GPLv3, forcing political agendas is not free.

Reply Score: -2

RE: Comment by Brynet
by ruinevil on Sat 26th Mar 2011 04:02 in reply to "Comment by Brynet"
ruinevil Member since:
2009-01-08

The GPL is supposed to be infectious. RMS developed it so everyone would have the right to modify their software.

GPL IS SUPPOSED TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD WITH ITS SUPERIOR SOFTWARE, BEING LINKED TO EVERYTHING OF VALUE.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by Brynet
by Morgan on Sat 26th Mar 2011 04:09 in reply to "Comment by Brynet"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Though I'm a fan of all open source software in general, I've always preferred BSD style licensing to the GPL myself, for several reasons.

Now I wonder...will Apple license their new SMB tech under a BSD license, or will they keep it closed like the GUI stuff in OS X?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Brynet
by brynet on Sat 26th Mar 2011 04:19 in reply to "RE: Comment by Brynet"
brynet Member since:
2010-03-02

It would most likely be released under the APSLv2 like all of Apple's system software.

http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1066/

Seems to me that the only thing Apple doesn't open source is GUI related components.. and drivers they've licensed from 3rd parties.

Personally I have no interest in SMB/CIFS, but maybe the Apple implementation will be of better quality than Samba.. perhaps it will get forked into an open source project to work on portability to BSD/Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE: Comment by Brynet
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sat 26th Mar 2011 04:45 in reply to "Comment by Brynet"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Why all the GPL V3 hate?

What's so wrong about GPL V3. People who write software should be able to determine the circumstances under which it can be used, right? Whats wrong with a bunch of people giving away code with the condition that it can't be locked up by anyone else?

Reply Parent Score: 10

Doth mine eyes deceive me?
by mrhasbean on Sat 26th Mar 2011 05:17 in reply to "RE: Comment by Brynet"
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

People who write software should be able to determine the circumstances under which it can be used, right?


Certainly not if it's say Apple saying "you can only run this on our hardware", but I suppose because it's GPL people view it with a different set of glasses - ones that have a rosey tinge...

Legally this is the only choice Apple has. GPLv3 is simply not compatible with large corporations, and Apple won't be the only ones distancing themselves from products that use it. While the goals of those patent clauses might seem honourable, the legal advisers to major corporations would be foolhardy to advise they do anything other than step away from such products, because taking on responsibility for someone else's patent compliance is just opening a can of worms, and certainly not something viable for big companies.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Brynet
by danieldk on Sat 26th Mar 2011 09:09 in reply to "RE: Comment by Brynet"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

Maybe, but in a world where software patens exist, the "Patents" clause is a huge risk.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Brynet
by Soulbender on Sat 26th Mar 2011 09:14 in reply to "RE: Comment by Brynet"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Nothing really. It's their code and they can attach whatever license they want to it. I guess people are rubbed the wrong way by how it is always touted as an instrument of freedom and such and how it is, supposedly, infectious.
Personally, I don't like the fact that it is god-knows-how-many-pages long and riddled with lawyerisms. I think RMS is a closet lawyer.
I much prefer the simplicity of the BSD license, aside from the fact that it's more free.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Brynet
by manjabes on Sat 26th Mar 2011 10:36 in reply to "RE: Comment by Brynet"
manjabes Member since:
2005-08-27

Well, Apple has already got bitten by the fact that GNU licenses have unforeseeable strings attached to who-knows-what. It's not just the legal letter (which is thoroughly intertwined with propaganda) but there's the "SPIRIT" of the license which comes back to haunt you after you think you've complied with all the written obligations (think Webkit, for example). And you still get a public bashing. So why bother with the GNUisances then?

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by Brynet
by bfr99 on Sat 26th Mar 2011 14:27 in reply to "RE: Comment by Brynet"
bfr99 Member since:
2007-03-15

There is nothing wrong with the GPLv3 like there is nothing wrong with corporations and individuals providing software on whatever basis they see fit. On the other hand talking about right and wrong implies a moral judgement that is inappropriate in what should be primarily an economic decision. Buyers are not more virtuous than sellers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by Brynet
by kaiwai on Sat 26th Mar 2011 06:02 in reply to "Comment by Brynet"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

There is no such thing as a free lunch - anything in life will always come with some gotcha, some sort of requirement to give up something to gain something. Apple has decided, based on a number of reasons (licensing being one of them) to write their own in house SMB implementation. Although GPL3 maybe a hugely obvious reason I am sure that technical reasoning is probably more likely the motivation behind it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Brynet
by Nth_Man on Sat 26th Mar 2011 07:02 in reply to "RE: Comment by Brynet"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

There is no such thing as a free lunch - anything in life will always come with some gotcha, some sort of requirement to give up something to gain something.

If you think about it, there are free/gratis things, like oxygen (I still have not paid for it :-)). And there are also the actions caused by the love of a mother, or due to friendship. There is also people that do things for unknown people, for love or whatever good reason. For example, if you have made a program for you... you can share it! yes! and have that good feeling that your work is being useful to other people, imagine them facing the same problems that you faced and solving them.

Edited 2011-03-26 07:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Brynet
by Alfman on Sat 26th Mar 2011 07:44 in reply to "RE: Comment by Brynet"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

kaiwai,

"Although GPL3 maybe a hugely obvious reason I am sure that technical reasoning is probably more likely the motivation behind it."

Under other circumstances that could be true, but in this case apple stopped updates only since Samba went to GPL3. If the reason was technical, there would be no reason for apple to discontinue updates while their in house version was in development. Therefore, we can be fairly certain the GPL switch was the cause.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Comment by Brynet
by spiderman on Sat 26th Mar 2011 06:47 in reply to "Comment by Brynet"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Freedom is always relative. You will learn that there is no one true universal freedom. There is religious freedom and freedom from religion. There is political freedom and freedom from politics. There is GPL freedom and freedom from GPL. In that case, GPL enforces freedom from patents. On the other hand, it removes freedom to use patents. You are free to walk but it removes your freedom to stop someone from walking.
So yes, the GPL is free from patents and several other problems. Those who say it is not free have a political agenda that the GPL is trying to stop.

Edited 2011-03-26 06:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 13

RE[2]: Comment by Brynet
by wazoox on Sat 26th Mar 2011 18:45 in reply to "RE: Comment by Brynet"
wazoox Member since:
2005-07-14

Software patents are horribly bad, anyway. So as a tool against software patents GPL3 has a point.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Comment by Brynet
by porcel on Sat 26th Mar 2011 06:58 in reply to "Comment by Brynet"
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

There is nothing insightful about your comment. It represents the tired agenda of those that want to build walled gardens because they are afraid of what would happen in a world where ongoing collaboration was the norm.

Here´s an idea: Work like every other person does, including doctors, architects. You create some software, make some money by supporting it, extending it, but let your users fix your bugs if you won´t do it yourself.

The GPL3 is a great license in a world where big companies and patent trolls, sue small developers for their innovative ideas.

I have not been active in forums in a while, but seeing your senseless gibbering has given me the motivation to be.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by Brynet
by PlatformAgnostic on Sat 26th Mar 2011 16:48 in reply to "RE: Comment by Brynet"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

Doctors and architects produce products that are not naturally duplicable and transferrable, so they do not quite compete with each other the way software and computer hardware companies do. Professionals like doctors, lawyers, architects and scientists mostly sell their personal talents and time to their customers. One doctor can't see every potential patient in the world.

If you're in competition where the 'winner' can more easily take over everything, like the software industry where the cost of duplication is minimal, collaboration is less desirable. GPL tries to force it, but any company that is as highly successful as Apple has been over the past decade will probably want to limit and control their collaboration with competitors.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Brynet
by BluenoseJake on Sun 27th Mar 2011 19:37 in reply to "RE: Comment by Brynet"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Here´s an idea: Work like every other person does, including doctors, architects. You create some software, make some money by supporting it, extending it, but let your users fix your bugs if you won´t do it yourself..


Every other person does not give their work away, and certainly does not allow people to fix "bugs" after the fact. If a Dr. replaces my shoulder, I certainly am not going to fix any errors he made myself, I'm going to go to another Dr. Same with an architect, if an architect designs my building, i certainly am not going to fix any problems myself, I will get an architect or an engineer too.

Most other professions do not use the OSS or Free Software model, and never can, or will.

Reply Parent Score: 2