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 467982
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Apple's Samba is GPL2
by Valhalla on Sat 26th Mar 2011 13:51 UTC 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

RE[4]: Apple's Samba is GPL2
by tyrione on Sat 26th Mar 2011 23:26 in reply to "RE[3]: Apple's Samba is GPL2"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

"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.
"

LLDB Project, under the LLVM License scheme is extending itself to distributed debugging with Linux and OS X--lots of work going into it.

Corporations heavily invested in Linux but don't want the GPLv2/GPLv3 structure will be able to leverage fully with LLVM their needs for development.

The Plugins for LLDB, so far, are OS X, Linux and GDBServer.

Reply Parent Score: 2