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 467926
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Brynet
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sat 26th Mar 2011 04:45 UTC 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

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Aside form the fact that a EULA is different that an open source code license, I actually am not that upset over apple's EULA.

Re: patents

Its obvious we have a lot of armchair legal quarterbacks here who are teaming up with Apple cheerleaders. I don't think the patent clause is that anti-corperate. I'd like to hear a reasoning form an actual corporation why they don't want to use gpl v3 software due to the patent clause. The old "its because of patents" refrain is weak reasoning. Its like asking why a company is bankrupt and being told " its because of money ".

Reply Parent Score: 2

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[3]: Comment by Brynet
by Nth_Man on Sat 26th Mar 2011 10:10 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Brynet"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

riddled with lawyerisms

A license is a legal contract, if you are going to do one, you have to do it with all the necessary details and forms. If not, a lawyer can come and bite you in the details.

For more intuitive explanations, you can write FAQs, quick guides, etc, like in
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

I think RMS is a closet lawyer.

You can see FSF's board of directors
http://www.fsf.org/about/board
the directors of the Software Freedom Law Center
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/about/team/
and mainly its boss: Eben Moglen, professor of law and legal history at Columbia University.

The FSF released the GPLv3, approved by the Software Freedom Law Center.

I hope you remember this next time you call someone "closet lawyer".

Reply Parent Score: 8

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