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 467930
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Brynet
by kaiwai on Sat 26th Mar 2011 06:02 UTC 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[3]: Comment by Brynet
by kaiwai on Sun 27th Mar 2011 04:29 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Brynet"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

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.


But when someone writes something and releases it under GPL/LGPL they're sharing it but there are conditions on that sharing, "I'm happy to share if only you're happy to share the changes you made" - so it is a code-for-code transaction; the original author isn't asking for money but instead that the 'payment' if you can call it that in the form of code. Personally for me I prefer the LGPL because it is a lot more flexible but I'm happy with BSD and more liberal licences too.

Regarding those other reasons, there is no such thing as a pure altruist - the fireman who has the exhilaration of saving someone, the volunteer who is happy because she/he is felt wanted/need by the community etc.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Brynet
by phillyg on Sun 27th Mar 2011 07:22 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Brynet"
phillyg Member since:
2011-03-27

If you drive a car with a catalytic converter, you are, in effect, paying for oxygen. A portion of your tax dollars, a portion of the cost of every chemical you buy, etc. goes to pay for for clean air. Believe me, the air is cleaner now, than when I was your age.

Reply Parent Score: 0

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[3]: Comment by Brynet
by kaiwai on Sun 27th Mar 2011 04:17 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Brynet"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

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.


True but it depends on how they actually implement the integration between the Finder and SAMBA given that SAMBA is licensed under GPL and the said libraries cannot be linked directly to - unless of course the SAMBA libraries are licensed under LGPL. It all comes down to, I guess what the situation is behind the scenes - I'm sure there is a logical reason for it but unless they come forward and explain it in detail I see all explanations so far as being mere rectum plucking (along with my own take on the matter).

Reply Parent Score: 2