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 468035
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by Brynet
by spiderman on Sun 27th Mar 2011 06:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Brynet"
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

I just don't get it. In every talk about the GPL, there is always somebody raising the argument that Joe Sixpack does not care about the license. What is the point about Joe Sixpack exactly? What does Joe Sixpack have to do with or against the GPL?

It's not about Joe Sixpack. I'm not Joe SixPack. Joe Sixpack does not write software and does not distribute it. Joe Sixpack does not know what software patents and the GPL are and he does not have to.

Joe Sixpack buys a computer and does not understand why it can't interact with his smartphone and why he can't read the document he wrote some years ago with an old word processor. Joe Sixpack does not want to know why it does not work. He just want his damn computer to work.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[5]: Comment by Brynet
by oiaohm on Sun 27th Mar 2011 06:58 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Brynet"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

I just don't get it. In every talk about the GPL, there is always somebody raising the argument that Joe Sixpack does not care about the license. What is the point about Joe Sixpack exactly? What does Joe Sixpack have to do with or against the GPL?

It's not about Joe Sixpack. I'm not Joe SixPack. Joe Sixpack does not write software and does not distribute it. Joe Sixpack does not know what software patents and the GPL are and he does not have to.

Joe Sixpack buys a computer and does not understand why it can't interact with his smartphone and why he can't read the document he wrote some years ago with an old word processor. Joe Sixpack does not want to know why it does not work. He just want his damn computer to work.


Ok let me explain this for Joe Sixpack why companies refusing GPLv2/GPLv3 should draw worry.

Main reason for not wanting GPLv2/GPLv3 is companies wanting exclusive control over your machine. Lets take the apple store. Apple reserves the right to remove any application that conflicts for market with one of their applications.

Effective mean of this. If Apple makes a buggy application for ipad/iphone you cannot have competing product.

Anti tivo clause in GPLv3 also requires Apple to allow user to install newer version. Users want there computer to work. What are you going todo if Apple version of SMB protocal is buggy in your device worse part is Apple decides not to allow an update. So now you have to buy a new device.

GPLv3 is about protecting the User. From being forced to buy a new product just because apple/who ever decided not to update it. Yet third parties will be able to offer updates for those devices due to the anti-tivo clause.

The clause has no requirement to hand over the appstore key. Only a signing key that will allow the gplv3 software to work.

So yes gplv3 gives Joe Sixpack a better chance that his phone and computer can be made integrate due to the fact the device will have better odds of being able to get working updates one way or another.

Anti-GPL is pro device maker anti end user.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Brynet
by bfr99 on Mon 28th Mar 2011 02:45 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Brynet"
bfr99 Member since:
2007-03-15

So Joe SixPack has to choose between pleasant effective software and hardware systems from Apple today but subjects himself to the hypothetical danger that Apple might perform some nefarious act in the future. I think his choice is obvious, its no wonder the market has spoken quite loudly in Apple's favor.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Brynet
by kaiwai on Sun 27th Mar 2011 09:05 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Brynet"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I just don't get it. In every talk about the GPL, there is always somebody raising the argument that Joe Sixpack does not care about the license. What is the point about Joe Sixpack exactly? What does Joe Sixpack have to do with or against the GPL?

It's not about Joe Sixpack. I'm not Joe SixPack. Joe Sixpack does not write software and does not distribute it. Joe Sixpack does not know what software patents and the GPL are and he does not have to.

Joe Sixpack buys a computer and does not understand why it can't interact with his smartphone and why he can't read the document he wrote some years ago with an old word processor. Joe Sixpack does not want to know why it does not work. He just want his damn computer to work.


If Joe Sixpack saw patent reforms as an important matter then he would put pressure on the political establishment - that if they want his vote they have to come up with a patent reform package that would convince him to vote for said candidate. The issue isn't about licenses, it isn't about GPL, about reading the thread before opening your mouth. The original post by woozx:

Software patents are horribly bad, anyway. So as a tool against software patents GPL3 has a point.


I am replying EXPLICITLY about patents, not GPL3, not the snow man or the only gay eskimo in the tribe but software patents. Look at his post, look at my post - you bringing up GPL3 has absolutely NO relevance what so ever to what I posted. If you want to address GPL3 then reply to HIS post, if you want to talk about software patents and only software patents then reply to my post.

Edited 2011-03-27 09:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Brynet
by oiaohm on Sun 27th Mar 2011 09:25 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Brynet"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

"I just don't get it. In every talk about the GPL, there is always somebody raising the argument that Joe Sixpack does not care about the license. What is the point about Joe Sixpack exactly? What does Joe Sixpack have to do with or against the GPL?

It's not about Joe Sixpack. I'm not Joe SixPack. Joe Sixpack does not write software and does not distribute it. Joe Sixpack does not know what software patents and the GPL are and he does not have to.

Joe Sixpack buys a computer and does not understand why it can't interact with his smartphone and why he can't read the document he wrote some years ago with an old word processor. Joe Sixpack does not want to know why it does not work. He just want his damn computer to work.


If Joe Sixpack saw patent reforms as an important matter then he would put pressure on the political establishment - that if they want his vote they have to come up with a patent reform package that would convince him to vote for said candidate. The issue isn't about licenses, it isn't about GPL, about reading the thread before opening your mouth. The original post by woozx:
"
That is if of course Joe Sixpack understands how much patents are costing him.

Big problem Joe Sixpack don't understand exactly the effects patents have. Like a drug can can be made for 10 cents a shot being sold for 200 dollars + per shot. So daily people die from not being able to afford a drug. That they would be able to afford if it was 400% on the production price as a max limit.

Yes Mr Joe Sixpack patents can cost you your life because you might not be able afford the drugs you need.

Same thing in time could happen in software.

Reply Parent Score: 3