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 468051
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by Brynet
by danieldk on Sun 27th Mar 2011 12:55 UTC 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

RE[8]: Comment by Brynet
by oiaohm on Sun 27th Mar 2011 14:01 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Brynet"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

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.

Option 4. Vendor X is member of the patent pools like OIN refers Y vendor to go have a polite chat to patent pool. Since other members in the pool are using the same software Vendor Y problem has now got a lot larger.

Option 5 contact http://www.patentcommons.org/ for assistance. This does bring IBM and others onto the table.

Option 6. Vendor X is member of http://www.protocolfreedom.org/ That is also a member of many patent pools and tells Y vendor to go have a polite chat with them.

Option 4, 5 and 6. Y vendor is now most likely wishing they never raised the patent issue in the first place. Lot of cases no agreement but they just disappear as well and never bother X vendor again.

Patent profit making depends on divide and attack. When attacked unify and counter profit attempting companies run for the hills.

Now if you have done 4,5 and 6 at the same time odds of a deal coming out of Y vendor to make it go away is kinda high.

Edited 2011-03-27 14:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Comment by Brynet
by danieldk on Sun 27th Mar 2011 17:09 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Brynet"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

Option 4. Vendor X is member of the patent pools like OIN refers Y vendor to go have a polite chat to patent pool. Since other members in the pool are using the same software Vendor Y problem has now got a lot larger.


The OIN patent pool is minuscule (and too scattered) compared of the patent arsenal of the average vendor. Vendor Y doesn't care if vendor X is part of the OIN if the OIN only holds one patent against Y and Y 20 patents against X.

Besides that, OIN also limits counter-measures, since OIN members promise not to assert patents over the 'Linux system'.

If OIN were so effective, why did one of its founding members (Novell) have to make a patent deal with Microsoft? I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other members also have cross-licensing deals with Microsoft over patents that affect e.g. Linux (IBM, Sony?).

Patents litigation can kill small to medium-sized companies. It's often easier to come to some agreement, which is, unfortunately not possible according the GPLv3.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by Brynet
by Vanders on Sun 27th Mar 2011 14:53 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Brynet"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Situations 2 and 3 would be exactly the same if vendor X distributed their software under the GPLv2, though. The only difference there is that you as the recipient of that GPLv2 work would have no idea which of situations 1,2 or 3 may apply.

Reply Parent Score: 3