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 467981
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by Brynet
by danieldk on Sat 26th Mar 2011 13:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Brynet"
danieldk
Member since:
2005-11-18

You have to negotiate with the patent owner to give a license to 'downstream', if you are not the patent owner. If you cannot negotiate such a deal (which is likely), either the patent holder or the GPLv3 prevents you in distributing software, depending on wether you enter a patent contract or not.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I thought the fact that a thing was GPLv3 included the patent permissions for downstream. Wouldn't Apple simply be obliged to not sue over related patents and make the source available?

Reply Parent Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Anyone want to provide some constructive critisism and point out why this question is so offensive, off topic or otherwise justifiably modded down? At least have the stones to support your disaproval.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Brynet
by Vanders on Sun 27th Mar 2011 11:19 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Brynet"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

if you are not the patent owner

If you are not the patent owner, the patent clauses in the GPLv3 do not apply. There is no need to negotiate anything on behalf of anybody.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by Brynet
by danieldk on Sun 27th Mar 2011 12:55 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Brynet"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

Yes, you do have to in a common situation:

- Vendor X redistributes GPLv3ed software.
- Vendor Y sues vendor X over patents violated in this software.
- Now there three possibilities:

1. Vendor X negotiates a patent license for all of downstream.
2. Vendor X negotiates a patent license for its own redistribution, but not downstream redistribution. Vendor X is in violation of the GPLv3.
3. Vendor X does not negotiate at all. X is in compliance with the GPLv3, but in violation with Y's patents.

(1) would be the only positive outcome for vendor X, but Y is not likely make such blanket license agreements.

The GPLv3 is very clear about this:

You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory patent license [...]

The patent clause is explicit in the GPLv3 to prevent things like the Microsoft-Novell deal.

Edited 2011-03-27 12:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2