Submitted by “After internal consideration in the Samba Team we have decided to adopt the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 licences for all future releases of Samba. The GPLv3 is the updated version of the GPLv2 license under which Samba is currently distributed. It has been updated to improve compatibility with other licenses and to make it easier to adopt internationally, and is an improved version of the license to better suit the needs of Free Software in the 21st Century. To allow people to distinguish which Samba version is released with the new GPLv3 license, we are updating our next version release number. The next planned version release was to be 3.0.26, this will now be renumbered so the GPLv3 version release will be 3.2.0. To be clear, all versions of Samba numbered 3.2 and later will be under the GPLv3, all versions of Samba numbered 3.0.x and before remain under the GPLv2.”
Very nice win for gplv3 – pretty much standard in basically everything network related
“””
Very nice win for gplv3 –
“””
The Samba team made a licensing change to a license which they feel suits the intents of the project more closely, and that’s cool.
But I certainly hope that everything license-related in FOSS news is not going to be interpreted in terms of whether it’s a win or a lose for GPLv3 from here on out.
Edited 2007-07-09 18:20
A fair comment but kinda mute in response to this statement. Just look at the Q&A section at the bottom for more info.
“pretty much standard in basically everything network related
”
No. Samba only matters for Windows networks and active directory. Networking is a much bigger field and samba isn’t very big in that context.
Nice “win” for gplv3 nonetheless.
Looks like Jeremy Allison and the rest of the Samba team are still angered by the MS/Novell deal and rightly so.
Personally, I think it’s great the Samba team have stuck to they’re guns on this one. If not, 12 to 18 months down the line, MS could always claim some form of direct copy originally disguised as a ‘helping interoperability’ initiative.
Not saying they would, just considering MSs past behavior.
Edit: Typo
Edited 2007-07-09 18:07 UTC
I agree. This move (news that is) is strictly out of mass hatred and anger for Novell. The rest of the reasoning behind the move is absolute garbage. I liked FOSS better when it wasn’t all about killing people we don’t like and trying to save the earth from evil CO2 breathing entities…. sigh. What ever happened to doing software because we want to solve a problem? Or help somebody out? This is getting out of hand.
I really don’t believe that this change was made due to some sort of juvenile schoolyard hatred the Microsoft/Novell deal.
It may be one factor influencing them, but if it is in any way weighted significantly, then to me it demonstrates a sense of immaturity within the team which I honestly do not believe exists.
“””
It may be one factor influencing them, but if it is in any way weighted significantly, then to me it demonstrates a sense of immaturity within the team which I honestly do not believe exists.
“””
If there is ever a patent attack by Microsoft upon the FOSS world, expect Samba and Wine to be the first targets. If I were a Samba contributor, I’d have been champing at the bit to move to GPLv3.
That said, where did you get the idea that people ever actually grow up? We don’t. Some of us just hide the fact better than others. 😉
The SMB protocol that Microsoft networking (and hence Samba) is based on is an IBM invention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_message_block
Microsoft took that protocol and “extended” it and made their extensions deliberately obscure … Microsoft made it as obscure as they possibly could manage.
This makes Microsoft networking protocols a trade secret.
Samba is a reverse engineering of Microsoft’s trade secret obscuring of IBM’s server messge block (SMB) protocol. Reverse engineering is a perfectly legitimate and legal way to discover a trade secret. Once the secret is discovered, the code has no further protection.
To have a patent, one has to disclose how the invention works.
There are no possible patents that Samab can infringe, because Samba is based on IBM’s protocol and it uses no ideas that are openly described in any patent.
A similar arguement would apply for Wine … although Wine is on slightly shakier ground because IBM invented only part of the Windows API when IBM and Microsoft were in partnership.
Or we just become sophisticated enough to rationalize our own irrationality!
Hmmm, I think that’s an actual example of poetic irony (although I’ve seen the word “irony” miss-used so often, I can barely tell anymore).
Until Novell/MS came along, enthusiasm for the GPL v3 was lukewarm but that deal they did changed a lot of people’s minds, including mine. Thanks Novell.
Very well said. Novell is going to be forced to adopt GPLv3 code, or feel the burn of biting into the Microsoft FUD apple. Poetic justice at its finest for both parties involved.
I had a good deal of negativity and cynicism towards the GPL (preferring BSD- and Apache-style licenses), but the whole ordeal with MS/Novell knocked a bit of sense into me, giving me a new respect for the GPL. While I may not agree with some of its principles, I still use quite a bit of GPLed software, and it’s still very sound and does an excellent job of protecting against malicious companies and vendors.
…in theory, at least: it sure does have Microsoft scared into illogicality, though it’s yet to be upheld in a court, AFAIK. (though I certainly do hope the GPL would be deemed enforceable!) I think there’s still a small silver lining if it wasn’t, however: if the GPL isn’t considered “valid”, I don’t see how draconian proprietary EULAs could be valid, either.
Edit: I stand corrected–did my Google research. The GPL has been upheld in court, at least in the sense that it’s not an antitrust practice. It was also apparently upheld in Germany. I’m rather ignorant about this topic and should look into it more.
I now prefer the LGPLv3 over BSD- and Apache-like liscenses. Even though I see the threat posed by such, I’m still a sucker for proprietary inclusionism in the open-source world. Personally, I see no reason why they can’t flourish alongside one another–or even because of one another: take Wine and Crossover Office, for example. The LGPL seems to be a brilliant compromise; it protects proprietary software from the so-called “viral” nature of the GPL, while still forcing proprietary developers to contribute back what they use.
Edited 2007-07-09 20:57
“””
Very well said. Novell is going to be forced to adopt GPLv3 code, or feel the burn of biting into the Microsoft FUD apple. Poetic justice at its finest for both parties involved.
“””
Since the MS/Novell deal predates Mar 28, 2007, Novell is no more affected by GPLv3 than anyone else. It’s Xandros and Linspire that are in trouble, if their agreements with MS are found to fall under the relevant new restrictions.
What about those elusive Linux vouchers and the conveyance clause in the GPLv3? I thought Microsoft was bound by that, i.e. those SUSE vouchers couldn’t be redeemed without giving away patent rights. Right now tech pundits and Groklaw members are pondering what would happen if one of those vouchers got redeemed. If nothing “bad” would happen to Microsoft or Novell, then I don’t understand what the fuss is about–unless it’s mass confusion and sensationalism, of course.
I know Novell got off scott-free for the rest of the deal (unlike Xandros and Linspire), where signing a patent aggreement automatically means sharing the patents with everyone if the members of the deal distribute GPLv3 software.
“””
unless it’s mass confusion and sensationalism, of course.
“””
Arguably PJ’s stock in trade, IMO.
That whole issue is very much something to be decided by the courts. And no amount of IANAL speculations, or even IAAL speculations will settle it.
Since Novell almost certainly *will* be including GPLv3 code, it is likely that we will eventually see the answer.
As to the bit about MS’s covenant not to sue being passed on to the greater community, I suspect we will never see a resolution on that, since MS would have to sue someone to test it, and they are likely not going to do that in the foreseeable future.
Edit and P.S.: After *much* (months of) consideration, I’m as anxious as anyone to see Novell pay for their attempt to do an end run around the GPLv2.
Edited 2007-07-09 21:32
Microsoft have read the GPL v3, they have seen that their vouchers indeed do have no expiration date, and they know that Novell will include GPL v3 software in the next release of SuSe, and that there is nothing in the Novell/Microsoft deal to stop Novell from doing that.
Microsoft will very likely pull out of the Microsoft/Novell deal entirely in order to avoid the patent clauses of GPL v3 applying to Microsoft, and Microsoft will invalidate all vouchers for SuSe and give people a refund.
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about this. The clause about “predates Mar 28, 2007” was deliberately kept in GPL v3 because of the following reasons:
(1) software that Novell relies upon (specifically GNU and Samba) would be definitely going to GPL v3
http://news.samba.org/announcements/samba_gplv3/
(2) GPL v3 changes the terms so that it is invoked now via acts of “conveying” and “propagation” instead of “distribution”,
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070709101318827
and
(3) the vouchers in the Novell/Microsoft deal have no expiration date.
Hence, when Novell releases its next version of SuSe, and that release of SuSe contains GNU software licensed under GPL v3 and Samba software licensed under GPL v3, and even one person then redeems a voucher, then Microsoft will be “on the hook” via their vouchers for SuSe, and will be bound by the terms of the GPL v3.
In order to avoid this happening, Microsoft will pull out of the Novell/Microsoft deal, most likely, and invalidate the vouchers.
So, in effect, leaving the “deal predates Mar 28, 2007” clause in the GPL v3 is in fact designed to kill the Microsoft/Novell deal.
Yes, Novell is very much affected by GPL v3. Hovespian has been elegantly thawrted.
http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12558-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=2699…
“and invalidate the vouchers. ”
OR ship old versions of suse that are all pre gpl3.
“””
it sure does have Microsoft scared into illogicality
“””
Hey shykid. Please don’t think I’m picking on you, because I’m not. But I just noticed that I didn’t address this phrase.
IMO, it is very important that we not make the mistake of overconfidence.
The landscape is littered with the corpses, or worse, the zombified remains, of companies who thought that they had outsmarted Microsoft.
Microsoft plays to win. And they are *very* *very* good at it.
FOSS represents a challenge of a different sort than they have ever faced. But nowhere has it been divinely revealed that there is not an effective strategy against it.
Overconfidence is absolutely *not* a luxury that we can afford.
Edited 2007-07-09 23:25
Just a correction – the GPL is *NOT* viral. You do not have to use GPL code. Period. A virus can, and will infect you whether you want it to or not. There is a difference, and that difference is CHOICE.
Those that seem to have a problem with the GPL, have fundamental likings for capitalism and letting those that have the biggest and deepest pockets getting their own way. The GPL *forces* those to play by the rules and work with the community, for the betterment of the community. It fosters sharing, which is totally against the principles of capitalism, where its dog eat dog, and the attitude is “I’m gonna screw you over to make a buck”.
Dave
Please save it.
The samba team has always been one of the most level-headed group of people.
They have a very hard job in front of them and they have been doing it wonderfully for years and years. I tip my hat to people who have talent, vision and morals.
Can someone who knows more then I do, tell me how this effects the BSDs out there? If it does at all? I know they have GPL2 Samba today, is there any issue with them using GPLv3 software?
-Chris
Correct me if I’m wrong, but what i’ve read…They’ll have to drop Samba from their OS or then relicense everything that directly interacts with Samba under GPLv3.
But then again, Samba can just keep “Samba for BSD” as separate product and under GPLv2 license.
Edited 2007-07-09 19:01
This doesn’t affect the BSD’s much and there is no new requirement for relicensing.
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but what i’ve read…They’ll have to drop Samba from their OS or then relicense everything that directly interacts with Samba under GPLv3.”
That’s not true. The GPLv3 isn’t any more “viral” than the GPLv2. As far as that goes, it’s exactly the same.
I’m pretty sure it’s much the same.
Any code linking directly(which would have to currently be under GPLv2) would have to be updated to GPLv3.
Do you actually mean “statically linked”?
When code is statically linked with a library, what happens is that the library code is included in the resultant object file, and hence is also included in the final executable.
When code is dynamically linked with a library, the library code is not included in the resultant object file. This then requires that the library itself is already installed on a target machine … and hence dynamic linking can end up in “dll hell”. In Linux it is called “dependency hell” … but it is AFAIK the same problem.
Anyway, with static linking, since your final product code actually includes the software you linked to, then you must have license compatibility. I don’t believe license compatibility is required if you dynamically link to a library.
The GNU GPL requires that all software linking, statically or dynamically to GNU GPL’d software is released under the GNU GPL.
There’s something that I don’t get… Does the samba team require all contributors to assign copyright to them (just like most GNU projects require contributors to assign copyright to the FSF)?
If they don’t, then they can’t actually change the licence without permission from everyone that made a contribution, however small, because they (implicitly) licensed their code as “v2 or later” and not “v3 or later”.
Actually they can. Anyone can take GPLv2 or later code and relicense it as “GPLv2 only” or “GPLv3 only” or “GPLv3 or later” or even “GPLv4”. It’s at the *user’s* discretion (read the license). Now they can’t relicense copies that they don’t possess, so if Novell decides to fork the current Samba as “GPLv2 or later” or even “GPLv2 only” they could do so. But they couldn’t take any updated code from the Samba team without going GPLv3.
“Anyone can take GPLv2 or later code and relicense it as “GPLv2 only” or “GPLv3 only” or “GPLv3 or later” or even “GPLv4″. It’s at the *user’s* discretion (read the license).”
Hmmm, no. You can’t relicense the code, only the original copyright holder can.
If the code is licensed “v2 or later”, *you* can choose to follow the terms of version 2, 3, 4, etc., but when you redistribute the code, the people that receive it *must* receive the right to do the *same*. If you redistribute the code as “v3 or later”, you are limiting the rights of the recipients by preventing them from choosing to follow v2’s terms.
>Hmmm, no. You can’t relicense the code, only the original copyright holder can.
It’s not about relicensing, it’s about doing what the author allows me to do: Using GPLv2 or any later version.
>*you* can choose to follow the terms of version 2, 3, 4, etc.,
Yes, if i use “gplv2 or later” code i can bind myself to GPLv2, GPLv3, GPLv4,..
If i decide to bind myself to GPLv2 i have to follow the rules of GPLv2, that means if i distribute the software i have to do it under “GPLv2” or “GPLv2 or later”.
If i decide to bind myself to GPLv3 i have to follow the rules of GPLv3, that means if i distribute the software i have to distribute it under “GPLv3” or “GPLv3 or any later”.
“If i decide to bind myself to GPLv3 i have to follow the rules of GPLv3, that means if i distribute the software i have to distribute it under “GPLv3” or “GPLv3 or any later”.”
No. The GPL clearly states that you must pass on the same rights you received. You can distribute under the terms of the GPLv3 because that’s part of your option of version to choose, but the recipient can choose to redistribute under the terms of version 2 and you can’t take that right away.
And nobody has the right to relicense code but the original copyright holder, unless that code is in the public domain which isn’t the case with any of the GPL versions.
The case of linking between GPLv2 and GPLv3 code is similar: the resulting work must be used under the terms of the GPLv3, but if you take the GPLv2 pieces and use them standalone (or mixed with other GPLv2 code), you retain the right of choosing v2 or v3.
People not getting the subtle difference between a copyright holder giving them the right to choose the terms for themselves while not giving them the right to choose those terms for others, and relicensing other people’s copyrighted (copylefted) work, should go read the GPL (v2 and v3) a couple of times until they do.
you are wrong.
if something is licensed under MULTIPLE licenses, in this base gpl v2 or later, the first license, such as gplv2, doesent cover the other licenses..
this means that if i download a piece of code thats gplv2 or later, i can simply choose to write: “gplv3” and redistribute, and should people get the copy from me, it is licensed under v3, not v2, not v4, but v3 only.
“this means that if i download a piece of code thats gplv2 or later, i can simply choose to write: “gplv3″ and redistribute, and should people get the copy from me, it is licensed under v3, not v2, not v4, but v3 only.”
That’s exactly what you aren’t allowed to do. The GPL (any version) doesn’t let you change the licensing notice written by the original copyright holder. In fact, you must keep the notice intact.
In the GPLv2:
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program’s source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
However, if the GPLv3 had a cluse stating that you could change the copyright notice, you could then choose “v3” under “v2 or later”, and then change the notice. However, the GPLv3 states:
4. Conveying Verbatim Copies. – You may convey verbatim copies of the Program’s source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.
So, if some contributor adds code to some source file with a “v2 or later” notice, he is applying that notice to his contribution. Therefore, you cannot change the notice for the whole file, nor can you use that particular contribution in another file where the notice is different.
“So, if some contributor adds code to some source file with a “v2 or later” notice, he is applying that notice to his contribution. Therefore, you cannot change the notice for the whole file, nor can you use that particular contribution in another file where the notice is different.”
IANAL, but if you write “GPLv2 or higher” and later the license practically states that you cannot change license, then the whole thing is a bit contradictory (just like saying Yes and “No” about same thing).
As the author CAN strip GPLv2 and relicense the code under anything else he wants, than he can also transfer this right to someone else just by writing a proper notice, regardless of further license text. Anyway, the author is only one able to sue for copyright violation, so if he gives a grant, he of course cannot sue when someone applies it (even if later text of license states otherwise).
AFAIK (might be wrong, but didn’t notice this), there is no obligation in GPLv2 (a self-licensing) that requires the author to follow some specific rules when applying the license to his code, so he is not bound by it when he puts that kind of a notice. GPLv2 is not bounding the author(s) in any way, it bounds only users (I wouldn’t call it a free license in other case).
(and actually, to relicense a GPL code, which happens quite commonly, people that want to do it just have to ask for authors permission and do it themselves: this isn’t any different from a notice written above a license, so this case WAS tested already!).
IANAL, but if you write “GPLv2 or higher” and later the license practically states that you cannot change license, then the whole thing is a bit contradictory (just like saying Yes and “No” about same thing).
No, it isn’t contraditory at all. You can change license, but only for yourself: Imagine there’s something you want to do with the software that isn’t allowed under the v2 terms but is allowed under v3. You can say you chose the latter version and just go ahead unharmed.
However, the people that receive the software from you must keep the same right (i.e. choosing whatever version suits them best).
As the author CAN strip GPLv2 and relicense the code under anything else he wants, than he can also transfer this right to someone else just by writing a proper notice, regardless of further license text.
Under some countries jurisdictions, either you retain copyright or you put the work in the public domain. You can’t assert copyright while letting other people relicense the work at the same time.
Letting a particular person choose the terms that apply to them is one thing, letting them choose the terms that apply to others is another thing.
Not even the BSD license allows relicensing. For instance, if I gained access to some Microsoft code and found pieces of BSD code in there, I could pick them and use them on my own projects, even if Microsoft says they relicensed that code under their own licensing terms (which would mean you could pick the code from some publicly available software, but you couldn’t pick it from Microsoft — stupid I know, but you get the picture).
>You can change license, but only for yourself: Imagine there’s something you want to do with the software that isn’t allowed under the v2 terms but is allowed under v3. You can say you chose the latter version and just go ahead unharmed.
Yes, e.g. when i want to distribute the software (with or without my additions) in a way the close the “DRM and software patent hole” i can chose the GPLv3 what results in a distribution of “GPLv2 or later” code under the terms of “GPLv3 or later”. Sure i can’t change the upstream license but my copy can become “GPLv3 or later” because the author allowed me to chose the license!
>Under some countries jurisdictions, either you retain copyright or you put the work in the public domain. You can’t assert copyright while letting other people relicense the work at the same time.
That’s a complete different topic but you can do it. The FSFE has developed the FLA for exactly this task: http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ftf/fla.en.html
>Letting a particular person choose the terms that apply to them is one thing, letting them choose the terms that apply to others is another thing.
If they can choose the terms of GPLv3 to apply to them than the complete GPLv3 apply to them also the parts who control the way you distribute the software and this parts say you have to keep the terms of GPLv3.
>Not even the BSD license allows relicensing. For instance, if I gained access to some Microsoft code and found pieces of BSD code in there, I could pick them and use them on my own projects, even if Microsoft says they relicensed that code under their own licensing terms (which would mean you could pick the code from some publicly available software, but you couldn’t pick it from Microsoft — stupid I know, but you get the picture).
Don’t mix up cause and effect!
You can do this because nobody can tell if you have the copy of the BSD Code from Microsoft or from BSD. Not because you are allowed to take code from MS products under the terms of the BSD license!
In the same sense you can still use all the Samba code which is now “GPLv3 or later” under “GPLv2 or later” as long as this code exist in the older versions which used “GPLv2 or later”. Because you can pick the code from the old version instead of the new version. But this overlapping will become lesser and lesser because every new code will be “GPLv3 or later” from the beginning.
Repeating again and again the same doesn’t make any sense.
Please consult legal experts if you don’t believe us!
I recommend licensing(at)fsf(dot)org or if you have a European background maybe ftf(at)fsfeurope(dot)org
Edited 2007-07-10 22:29
but you are still wrong, the text that says what the work is licensed under is _NOT_ part is the license itself.
This is true only for versions of code released under “GPL v2 or later”.
Samba’s announcement means that for all new releases of Samba (ie any version of Samba 3.2 or later) will be licensed under GPL v3 only. That means downstream distributors will not have the ability to stick with the “GPL v2” terms for any version of Samba at or after version 3.2.
There is a large functionality increase in Samba slated for version 4.
http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=…
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/New-Samba-targets-Active-…
This is true only for versions of code released under “GPL v2 or later”.
Right.
Samba’s announcement means that for all new releases of Samba (ie any version of Samba 3.2 or later) will be licensed under GPL v3 only.
That what I was originally questioning. Do they have the right to change the license without asking all copyright holders for permission?
>That what I was originally questioning. Do they have the right to change the license without asking all copyright holders for permission?
Yes, because the authors had said, that they can use/distribute their code under “GPLv2 or any later version” so the Samba-Team can now chose to use the code under GPLv2 or GPLv3 and of course distribute it under GPLv2 or GPLv3.
That’s the answer to your question. If you don’t believe it i would recommend ask some legal experts for Free Software licensing like one of the FSFs.
Edited 2007-07-10 12:52
Actually, by selecting “Vx or later” the copyright holder is waiving their right to control the license, within certain boundaries.
The “v2 or later” clause allows the user to redistribute the code under the conditions of v2 or v3. If the code is linked with v3 code, or the user modifies it with code they choose to release as v3, then the code can be re-distributed as v3. This is also a similar argument to that coming out of the openSolaris camp opposed to a dual-license CDDL/GPLv3 product from Sun, since they feel that the code will simply be used under a v3 license by “the community” with none of their patches/modifications being portable for everyone else due to the CDDL requirement.
By the same token, developers could continue contribute code to Samba under “v2 or later”, which would make it compatible with the v3 requirements, as well as making those portions of code available to downstream versions (hint, hint, if anyone decides to fork).
IMHO, the decision to move to v3 was a bold move, and could very well invite a fork. This is a cornerstone technology that goes beyond linux distributions, it has a place in network appliances and embedded applications as well. Beyond the Novell/MS tempest-in-a-teapot, there are a number of commercial vendors who may not like the provisions of v3 when integrating Samba as part of their product. While I understand the philosophical intent behind the move, I can’t help wonder if it’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Samba is a very respectable piece of technology and the team has done an outstanding job, but it would be a bit naive to believe that Samba couldn’t easily be forked by commercial developers.
So while the will of “the community” is served, I’m not sure it’s necessarily the best long-term position for “the community”. I think there’s valid arguments on both sides of this one, that will lean towards either philosophy or pragmatism, as most FLOSS vs OSS arguments do.
“If the code is licensed “v2 or later”, *you* can choose to follow the terms of version 2, 3, 4, etc., but when you redistribute the code, the people that receive it *must* receive the right to do the *same*. If you redistribute the code as “v3 or later”, you are limiting the rights of the recipients by preventing them from choosing to follow v2’s terms”
Wrong. If author grants you the right to relicense (as e.g. with the BSD license), it is perfectly legal. In this case author allows anyone to relicense under a higher version of GPL. Even if not, you could force it by just adding a line of code (or less:) as a GPL3-only. At that point, that copy of code would become irreversibly v3 (unless author of patches allows to relicense).
One thing I don’t understand is: why should author really put “v2 or higher”? I mean I wouldn’t normally grant right to freely change license of my code to some people at FSF that pursue some childish anti-corporate agenda
Many people don’t actually understand concept of copyright(left), but apparently Linus did and picked v2 only.
So what will happen? Microsoft will just sell coupons themselves in case Novell won’t legally be able to do it. GPLv3 won’t prevent their deal in any way as long as coupons with explicit patent coverage claim aren’t sold in the same package as SLES/SLED.
I am not sure if they require copyright assignment, but if they have a 100% pure “GPL2 or later” code then by simply making all new code added to the codebase GPL3 they will accomplish their goal of making the whole code in practice GPL3
…we’ve known this was going to happen for a while.
It’s not really news, as such.
Almost every story at OSNews gets a comment saying it’s not news. Let’s just accept that nothing is news so the comment isn’t needed.
LOL. OK then.
go samba
It’s really exciting. Which project has already switched? Which project switches right now? Which project will switch tomorrow?
I would really like to follow the adoption of GPLv3. Is there any way to do this? Something like a wiki or a webpage which keeps track of it?
It would be also interesting to hear something from large and important projects like gcc, KDE, GNOME,… What they are planing to do.
EDIT: Fixing typo
Edited 2007-07-09 22:55
The GPL v3 license is authored by the GNU foundation.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
gcc and GNOME are GNU projects …
http://gcc.gnu.org/
http://www.gnome.org/about/
… work it out for yourself.
I don’t know what KDE will do.
I don’t know about a wiki, but this Palamida site might have the information you are after:
http://gpl3.palamida.com:8080/index.jsp
The adoption rate of GPL v3 so far seems to be 116 projects per week:
http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/2193729/gplv3-draws-116-project…
The interesting thing will be with the changes in GPLv3, where does Novell stand – will the continue to develop a fork of the GPLv2 branch or will they resign an agreement with Microsoft which explicitly states that GPLv3 products are excluded from the arrangement.
It would be good for Microsoft to disclose a list of patents which they claim Linux (I’m assuming when they refer to Linux, they mean the GNU userland plus the kernel as well) infringes on – like I said in the past, given that Linux is primarily an implementation of UNIX, if there was a protest it should be from big name UNIX vendors – not Microsoft.
If Microsoft came out and said, “here are the patents” and they stood up to scrutiny, then Microsoft should only really go after companies who offer it as part of their commercial distribution. It makes little sense going after free implementations given that they have no money to begin with.
With that being said, I’ve been against SAMBA from day one – it would be alot better for all concerned to develop a new file sharing protocol or even embrace an existing one like NFSv4 and create all the necessary drivers/clients for Windows so that interoperability isn’t reliant on Microsoft.
This comment from Novell may go some way to answering your question:
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/92416
Some choice soundbites to be found there.
Novell: “For us GPLv3 is not a problem”
Novell: “Novell, however, begs to differ”
Samba is based on IBM’s Server Message Block protocol … just like Windows networking is. Why should Samba invent a new protocol when Windows didn’t?
Oh, BTW, since Windows networking is an obscured extension of IBM’s Server Message Block protocol, the only “IP protection” it has is the fact that it is a trade secret. There is no innovation here, and there can be no patent either … to get a patent one must publish the way something works, not obscure it.
Reverse engineering of a trade secret is perfectly legal.
Who said they should? why not develop a driver/software for NFSv4, and make it as easy to use as SMB – allow easy to share/setup NFSv4 server on Windows, for example; integrate them together.
I never said it was legal or illegal. I said that you were at the mercy of Microsoft constantly changing their protocol – you’re always going to be ‘behind’ the Microsoft implementation.
Hence the reason I said, you would be alot better off using an existing protocol, which is open, and use it instead.
Heck, look at Novell and iFolder. If NFSv4 isn’t your thing, iFolder could be the good replacement.
No.
Microsoft cannot make their protocol incompatible with literally billions of legacy Windows machines.
There is a high demand to be able to serve those legacy Windows machines. The machines cannot speak NFS, NFSv4 or iFolder. They all speak an obscured (excuse the expression but for my ozzie tongue this is the best word) “bastardized” version of IBM’s server message block protocol.
That need is what Samba addresses. For this reason alone, Samba is a very popular, successful and worthwhile program.
Edited 2007-07-10 12:05
Excuse me, what is so hard with installing iFolder server on a Windows 2003 server and using that instead of SMB? plonk the ifolder client on each of the clients, and its completely transparent.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand something so basic?
It probably isn’t that hard, but it is also far from completely trivial in all situations.
First of all there is no iFolder sever binary for Win2003 on the iFolder website, so you have to either find one or build one.
Secondly there is no client for Win98 or NT4, so if you have those kinds of legacy machines kicking about they’ll need to be upgraded or you’ll have to build a client from source.
Thirdly plonking an ifolder client on each machine does require a fair bit of work if you have lots of machines, and don’t forget peoples laptops as well.
Fourthly, almost all admins are very familiar with samba/SMB and all of its quirks. They know how to admin it and they know how to fix it. The same is not true for iFolder.
So in the end, why bother? In most cases iFolder won’t win you much over Samba, just add more work.
That being said, I think the iFolder project is really cool and hope it becomes more popular. I’ve installed it on a test system, and on the whole I’m very impressed. If I ever run across a situation where I feel it’s the right solution I would have no qualms against implementing it. But doing so just to replace Samba/SMB as a matter of principle doesn’t make sense to me.
1) More builds are available – then again, one would argue that having Windows for a file server is a waste of money given it can be done with FreeBSD, Solaris, Linux or some other ‘free’ or ‘low cost’ operating sysmte.
2) You are correct, it isn’t a drop in solution for some people, but if you do have *NIX server with Windows XP clients, then why not use iFolder?, especially, if you have a mixture of *NIX, Windows XP clients.
3) iFolder is C# based, it would be just a matter of recompiling it using the tools from Mono – not ideal, but it isn’t as though administrators are foreign to such ideas.
1) More builds are available – then again, one would argue that having Windows for a file server is a waste of money given it can be done with FreeBSD, Solaris, Linux or some other ‘free’ or ‘low cost’ operating sysmte
Assuming I already have a windows file server up and running there is no wasted money in keeping it running. On the other hand taking the server off line to install a new OS, format the discs, and copy back the files from backup is a huge cost.
but if you do have *NIX server with Windows XP clients, then why not use iFolder?
One reason may be retraining of staff. iFolder works differently from SMB. Virtually Everybody knows how to access shared resources using SMB on windows, virtually no one knows how to use iFolder. Now it’s not hard, but it would still require training and changing of many peoples routines.