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 467962
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Apple's Samba is GPL2
by Valhalla on Sat 26th Mar 2011 10:43 UTC in reply to "Apple's Samba is GPL2"
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24

If you are a corporation, GPLv3 is indeed bad.

Hmmm.. so why is IBM, Red Hat, Novell, Intel, AMD, Google etc all contributing code to GPLv3 licenced projects such as GCC?

GPLv3 requires each distributor of the the software or patches to indemnify that software against patent violations - including patents held by third parties

Please point me to the GPLv3 paragraph (or any other source of information) that says distributors have to indemnify GPLv3 software against patent violations.

What GPLv3 says is that if you contribute your patented code to a GPLv3 licenced project you can't turn around and sue the recipients for patent infingement, instead you grant the recipients the right to modify and redistribute your patented code. Again, show me the licence text pertaining to patent indemnification against patent violations. I sure haven't found any:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0-standalone.html

As for Apple not using GPLV3 (and not GPLv2) it's obviously because they want to incorporate the code into their proprietary products. Just like llvm in XCode, Webkit into Safari etc.

Back in the days of Next, Steve Jobs had his first brush with the GPL when he tried to use GCC as a frontend to a proprietary ObjectC backend, this wouldn't fly and after the threat of going to court Next decided to release ObjectC as GPL since they needed to use the GCC frontend, thus GCC got ObjectC support and everyone was happy, well apart from Steve Jobs/Next.

So it's not hard to see why Jobs went and supported llvm when the opportunity arised, but this ended up being a good thing (imo) since llvm is open source (and hopefully Apple will continue to send or their non-XCode related in-house patches upstream) and it also provides much needed competition to GCC.

So if Apple does indeed make their own Samba replacement open source then that's obviously great. If not then it's not like they were contributing to Samba anyway afaik.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: Apple's Samba is GPL2
by Stratoukos on Sat 26th Mar 2011 11:47 in reply to "RE: Apple's Samba is GPL2"
Stratoukos Member since:
2009-02-11

Hmmm.. so why is IBM, Red Hat, Novell, Intel, AMD, Google etc all contributing code to GPLv3 licenced projects such as GCC?

You are cherry picking companies. I could list a thousand companies that don't. I believe that GPL is indeed bad for companies, but that's beside the scope of this issue.


As for Apple not using GPLV3 (and not GPLv2) it's obviously because they want to incorporate the code into their proprietary products. Just like llvm in XCode, Webkit into Safari etc.

How is GPLv2 different ot GPLv3 in this regard? The exact same restrictions apply. Apple has been able to work with (or around) them either by open sourcing their code (webkit, objc support in gcc) or by not directly linking with GPLed code (eg spawning new processes to use gcc and gdb inside Xcode).


So if Apple does indeed make their own Samba replacement open source then that's obviously great. If not then it's not like they were contributing to Samba anyway afaik.

Here we agree. Making a big deal about licenses is for zealots. If Apple makes the new implementation open source it's a win-win-win situation.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Apple's Samba is GPL2
by oiaohm on Sat 26th Mar 2011 12:00 in reply to "RE[2]: Apple's Samba is GPL2"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

"Hmmm.. so why is IBM, Red Hat, Novell, Intel, AMD, Google etc all contributing code to GPLv3 licenced projects such as GCC?

You are cherry picking companies. I could list a thousand companies that don't. I believe that GPL is indeed bad for companies, but that's beside the scope of this issue.
"
First thing before you get too far ahead of yourself. Who's protocol is SMB. Answer IBM's. What is IBM's policy requirements for patent coverage for all their patents. GPLv2 or higher unless you have approval from IBM legal department.

Samba is to IBM requirements. This game is not as simple as it first appears.

Yes there was a reason why MS basically got raped in the EU court over what they were doing with SMB based protocols.

Yes there are legal requirements at play here. Same with the Linux kernel. There are a lot of different techs in the Linux kernel that BSD is not allowed to have. Due to the fact those techs are only licensed for GPLv2 code.

You might be about to find thousands of companies that disagree but those don't have a legal vested interest in this problem. Also at times those thousands of companies will have to use GPLv2+ to get patent grants.

Yet lot of those thousands of companies also call for patents. Are they mad? If you hate being forced to use GPLv2+ you should hate patents as well. Because that is the very thing that will force you to use GPLv2+.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Apple's Samba is GPL2
by Nth_Man on Sat 26th Mar 2011 12:07 in reply to "RE[2]: Apple's Samba is GPL2"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16


> > > If you are a corporation, GPLv3 is indeed bad.
> > Hmmm.. so why is IBM, Red Hat, Novell, Intel, AMD, Google etc all contributing code to GPLv3 licenced projects such as GCC?
> You are cherry picking companies.

He was asking a question. The question was not answered. GPLv3 is "bad" for companies that want:
- a vendor lock-in and devices where you pay for them and you can not modify them. A monopoly where you are not free to do X and Y. GPLv3 avoids tivoization and companies like Tivo do not like it.
- planned obsolescence, so you must buy another product because this is what not was planned.
- etc :-(

> > So if Apple does indeed make their own Samba replacement
> > open source then that's obviously great.
> Here we agree.

Here we agree, too.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Apple's Samba is GPL2
by Valhalla on Sat 26th Mar 2011 13:51 in reply to "RE[2]: Apple's Samba is GPL2"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

You are cherry picking companies.

I am naming big companies that I KNOW are contributing code under a GPLv3 licence, which was in response to the following -'If you are a corporation, GPLv3 is indeed bad.' which suggested that corporations don't want to use GPLv3 because it would be bad for them.

I could list a thousand companies that don't. I believe that GPL is indeed bad for companies, but that's beside the scope of this issue.

Then why did you revisit this subject?


How is GPLv2 different ot GPLv3 in this regard?

You misread me, I meant that Apple is moving away from using both GPLv2 and GPLv3. Again because they can't use such licenced code within their proprietary software.

Since they want to keep XCode proprietary, they can't actually integrate GDB debugging and GCC into XCode, hence them allocating resources to the development of LLVM which will allow them just that, a proprietary integrated development platform, just like their proprietary performance analyzer 'Instruments' is built upon DTRACE.

Reply Parent Score: 3