Apple Remove Samba From OS X 10.7 Because of GPLv3 1075
recoiledsnake writes "The upcoming release of Mac OS X 10.7 Lion Server will remove the formerly bundled open source Samba software and replace it with Apple's own tools for Windows file sharing and network directory services. In both Mac OS X Server and client editions, Samba enables Macs to share files with Windows clients on the network and access Windows file servers. It has also later allowed Mac OS X Server to work as an NT Domain Controller to manage network accounts and make roaming profiles and home directories available to Windows PC users. However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially. Apple is now said to be recommending Active Directory to users who are still dependent upon the older NT Domain Controller network directory services. Apple has previously stopped contributing code to GCC and started looking at other options like LLVM because of GCC's switch to GPLv3."
GPL 3 does not prevent commercial use. (Score:5, Insightful)
GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially.
No, it doesn't. That's a ridiculous assertion presented without any evidence or reason.
As wikipedia might demand: Citation needed.
Prevents Tivoization (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, that was my first reaction as well. The summary is flat out wrong the way it is worded, but there are legitimate licensing issues.
The problem is with the iPhone, not OS X (yet). If you distribute binaries covered by the GPLv3 on a device, the license requires you to provide any signing keys, or other information/tools required to run modified versions of the software on the device. The iPhone requires all applications to be signed, and does not provide signing keys to it's users, thus they can't use GPLv3 software (like samba) on iOS.
They probably figure it is easier to maintain a single SMB/CIFS implementation rather than two, so they are ditching it on OS X as well (or they have other plans for OS X that we are not aware of yet).
Re:Prevents Tivoization (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is with the iPhone, not OS X (yet). If you distribute binaries covered by the GPLv3 on a device, the license requires you to provide any signing keys, or other information/tools required to run modified versions of the software on the device. The iPhone requires all applications to be signed, and does not provide signing keys to it's users, thus they can't use GPLv3 software (like samba) on iOS.
Who wants to run Samba on their iPhone? I mean, a lot of people, of course. But for the mainstream user who will not jailbreak, this is not even that interesting. However, if they should expect you to run iOS on your desktop, suddenly it becomes relevant. This is just one of many preludes to the eventual death of OSX and its replacement with iOS. OSX may continue to exist as a workstation OS, but I doubt it, because who takes OSX seriously in the enterprise? It's something you have forced upon you, not something you add to your network on purpose.
Re:Prevents Tivoization (Score:5, Insightful)
Just about all of the binaries in /System on a Mac OS X site are signed by Apple to prevent tampering, either by the user or Eve trying to installing a rootkit. They probably don't want to turn over the signing keys for those, because they definitely don't want Eve patching their system, and as far as Apple engineers are concerned /System should have a big sticker on it reading "No user serviceable parts inside."
Re:Prevents Tivoization (Score:4, Insightful)
all of the binaries in /System on a Mac OS X site are signed by Apple to prevent tampering...by the user
Right, so removing the user's freedom to change their system and locking their hardware to a single OS would be exactly what is violating the clear intention (and now the letter) of the GPL. Sounds like the GPLv3 is working perfectly, then.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's sortof disingenuous, GPL has always been a Hobson's choice. You can always "sell" a piece of GPL software, but unless you are the original rights holder the GPL has the practical effect of ruining any mechanism for monetizing the software. If any distribution of the software requires the source code be included, it destroys the competitive advantage of the seller in a market and makes it impossible to prevent fre
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is the IP clauses in it. Any company with a reasonable legal department has already made even the installation of a GPLv3 package a fireable offense. V3 has all sorts of automatic grants of patent rights in it. Its toxic to any company trying to even maintain a defensive IP portfolio.
Re:GPL 3 does not prevent commercial use. (Score:5, Insightful)
Software patents are toxic, period. If you're afraid of being sued over software patents, you should be abusing the government and lobbying to have them abolished.
Wetting your pants over a software license that acknowledges this problem is the wrong solution, and you're only contributing to a problem you acknowledge exists yourself (or you just wish you could abuse and not be abused.)
Not specifically due to GPLv3. (Score:5, Informative)
Apple has been moving away from the GPL in all it's forms for a while now. They just got around to us (I'm guessing we were pretty high on the list once they got rid of gcc :-).
Jeremy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And thus the tenets of Free Software relating to code availability and reusability are served with GPLv3 ... not!
With GPLv3 it's an all-or-nothing situation: either the whole world will use Linux and be strictly copyleft, or it will avoid it and companies will reimplement the parts they need in a way that's more closed than before. That is why GPLv3 is a mistake.
Re:Not specifically due to GPLv3. (Score:5, Interesting)
> "Do you want to give a justification of why you are willing to
> keep using the GPL even though it means companies like
> Apple are not willing to use your software?"
Sure. Apple have never been a major contributor to Samba. Other companies like Google, IBM, Cisco, Symantec (and many other NAS vendors and OEM's) are happy to contribute and use Samba under GPL (both v2 and v3), so the GPL is still a vital tool to share development costs between companies who want to *contribute*, not just use.
IMHO Apple want to keep their ability to sue over software patents, which the GPL is designed to make difficult.
If you've been following the news recently I hope you see why this is becoming more and more important for Free Software code. Sort of off-topic, but software patents really are a threat to all software engineers and they don't distinguish between open source or proprietary code :-(.
Jeremy.
Re:Also maybe because Samba is getting too good (Score:5, Interesting)
> So, a couple interesting things related to CIFS came to light
> not long ago. The first was playing with Macs. They suck at
> it, horrible performance. In 10.4 they couldn't even talk to the
> NetApp with CIFS at all, they could talk to Windows servers
> but slowly. NFS worked but it was a disaster trying to get
> permissions to work right.
>
> We figured this was in part because they use Samba which
> is not necessarily the fastest thing out there, and was
> originally designed for reverse engineering SMB, not a
> reference CIFS implementation like the NetApp.
Oh dear. Is NetApp marketing really this good ?
Firstly - the Mac client is written by Apple and is called smbfs, it's not Samba at all. It is Open Source code, released by Apple in Darwin. I know the engineers who write it, and they're really good and have been working on it for a while, so I'm sure it's gotten better since you tried it.
Secondly, "a reference CIFS implementation like the NetApp." !!!!
Oh. My. God. :-). NetApps CIFS implementation was written well after Samba, with some judicious peeks at the Samba code in order to implement the hard stuff (this was before Microsoft released their docs). That's ok, that's one of the reasons the Samba code is out there, so people can learn from it.
As for being "a reference CIFS implementation". Just try running Samba's smbtorture4 test suite against NetApp's "a reference CIFS implementation" to discover how much of a "reference" they actually implemented.
Jeremy.
Re:Also maybe because Samba is getting too good (Score:5, Interesting)
No it is more in testing. What I find is this:
Windows to Windows: Wire speed.
Windows to NetApp: Wire speed.
Windows to (current) Linux: Wire speed.
MacOS to NetApp: Slow.
MacOS to Windows: Slow.
MacOS with ADmitMac to NetApp: Wire speed.
MacOS with ADmitMac to Windows: Wire speed.
This is with current OS 10.6. With older MacOS it didn't work with the NetApp at all.
Like it or not, this is what my testing indicates, and my only conclusion can be that Apple either is using code that is bad with CIFS, or that they are making it slow on purpose. Like I said, Thursby (who makes ADmitMac) has a grade-A CIFS client and we license their software in part because of it.
Could the summary be more terrible? (Score:5, Informative)
The more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially
Uhhh...no it doesn't. Read the license. If you don't want to read the license, just read GNU's handy GPL FAQ, which includes a section on whether or not you can sell GPL software commercially.
I'll give you a hint: the answer is yes, you can.
That said, Apple may have perfectly legitimate reasons for not wanting to use the GPLv3, but an imaginary prohibition on commercial software isn't one of them!
Re:Could the summary be more terrible? (Score:5, Interesting)
Kind'a. It prevents Apple using the software commercially within its business methods and business strategy.
Apple is a known "patents at dawn" company. That does not fit the GPLv3 mutual assured destruction patent clauses.
So while other companies can use GPLv3 commercially, Apple cannot do so. It will be in violation of the license the next time it tries to lob a patent nuke which is something it does on a regular basis.
Unfortunately, Apple is not alone here. Nearly all big companies are in the same position and they will follow suit. While I understand RMS aims and ideas here, that is really not the way. GPL should not be a replacement for court, legislation and enforcement.
Article and summary get it wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
"However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially. "
Nothing in the GPLv3 prohibits using the software commercially, unless that means taking software that others wrote and released and making it unfree.
As for all the posters who will say now that the GPL is too restrictive and actually has nothing to do with freedom - yes it restricts the freedom of the person distributing the software in either its original or a changed version but only exactly to the extent necessary to guarantee that the person who receives the software gets the same extent of freedom as the original software allowed. The freedom to take other people's freedom away is certainly some kind of freedom, but probably not the kind that the creators of Samba wanted to promote.
It is actually an intended consequence of the GPL to keep companies that want to distribute software in a restricted way (e.g. on "locked" phones where they control what you can install, and probably soon enough on "locked computers" under the pretense of security) from doing this with GPLed software. That Apple cannot use the software for such purposes puts free software and hardware at an advantage and increases the cost for Apple of taking away people's freedom.
Presumably, the developers that put their code under the GPL wanted exactly that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing in the GPLv3 prohibits using the software commercially, unless that means taking software that others wrote and released and making it unfree.
Really? What does DRM and keys have to do with the source code? If you take a binary created by GPL'ed code and then sign in with a key, what does that have to do with the original source? How is that different that compiling a binary, saving it in a password projected zip file? If you contribute any changes made to the actual code the binary is based on, shouldn't that be enough? I would argue that GPLV3 is a violation of copyright law. I should be free to take GPL'ed code, compile it into a binary, burn i
Re:Article and summary get it wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
What does DRM and keys have to do with the source code?
What good is source code if you can not run binaries created from that source code?
I should be free to take GPL'ed code, compile it into a binary, burn it onto a CD, defecate on that CD and then run over it with a truck if I want to.
You're free to defecate on as many CDs as you like as long as you don't try to pass them off to others without following the terms of the license.
I would argue that how the binary is packaged is of no business to the original copyright lowers and it is an overreach of their rights under copyright law. I should be allowed to package it how I see fit as long as I contribute any source code changes needed to compile the same binary.
You are completely bound by the wishes of the author if you want them to give you the right to distribute their works. Remember you have no innate right to distribute someone else's copyrighted works no matter how much you stomp your feet about it.
Re:Article and summary get it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
If you take a binary created by GPL'ed code and then sign in with a key, what does that have to do with the original source?
AFAIK, the anti-TIVOization clause in GPLv3 means that if, say, OS X were to run only signed Samba binaries, anyone should be able to get the signing keys just if they ask nicely. The sprit of GPLv3 is that not only you must get the sources, but you must also have a way of modifying the software and getting it to run as a replacement. On OS X for example it's currently impossible to replace the bundled Samba component and have OS X recognize it as a valid system component (due to signing). It is OK as far as GPLv2 is concerned, but not for GPLv3.
I just don't get the argument about GPLv3 somehow being contrary to the U.S. Copyright Law. Do remember that GPLv3 is a license: it gives you extra rights that you otherwise don't have as they by default remain with the copyright holder. If you don't like the terms: do as Apple did, don't use it. That's all there is to it.
Closed ecosystem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Closed ecosystem (Score:5, Insightful)
Doubtful. If that was the case then GCC would not have been replaced with Clang and LLVM. And Apple would not have put LLDB into the open source domain.
Apple just does not like the GPL, but they have no problem with the BSD-style licensing.
Gregor.
Re:Closed ecosystem (Score:4, Insightful)
but they have no problem with the BSD-style licensing
Boy, they'd be in big trouble if they did.
Re:Closed ecosystem (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think Apple is trying to totally close their software and hardware ecosystems so only they can provide software,
You're right – that's why last time apple dropped a GPLv3 hot potato (GCC) they released their own alternative using the BSD license. Wait... no.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course they are. Several security holes in OSX and, perhaps more importantly, iOS have been found specifically by looking at the Darwin code base.
Re:Closed ecosystem (Score:5, Interesting)
Pretty much everyone working on core Mac OS X components has a *BSD background -- mostly former FreeBSD developers who were hired by Apple.
All major BSDs are reluctant to even allow GPLv2 in their base system. They all don't like the whole copyleft concept at all. GPLv3 is completely forbidden in the base installation.
Apple's Darwin team has a BSD culture which is apparent that Apple itself is moving away from the LGPL-like 'Apple Public Source License' to the BSDL-like Apache License 2 for Apple's own newer FOSS projects like libdispatch.
GPLv3's anti-TIVO-ization clause was just the last nail in the coffin of Apple's GPL endorsement.
Re:Closed ecosystem (Score:5, Interesting)
Please don't compare Apple to Sony (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has neither attacked a hacker nor put rootkits on users' systems.
Apple and the FSF may not see eye to eye, but Apple is one of the better corporate citizens when it comes to open source and the end customer.
None of the above has any bearing on whether you want to boycott their closed-system approach. I applaud your boycott, though I won't be joining you.
Incorrect summary (Score:4, Informative)
However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially.
That should be: However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially in the way they want to use it.
On the iPhone and iPad, Apple wants the device itself to be closed, which means the user is not allowed to install operating system components. Samba is an operating system component. If Apple allowed the end user to replace it, then jailbreaking would be as easy as replacing Samba with a hacked version, then using Samba from within any application. On MacOS X, no problem; you may replace Samba as much as you like; if it doesn't work, it's your problem obviously.
So on iDevices, Apple cannot use GPL v3 code commercially _the way they want to use it_. So they can't use it. At that point it's obviously better to have one code base and replace it on MacOS X as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
GPL is bad.
Bullshit.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
GPL is bad.
Bullshit.
Strong argument there.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Informative)
This is a gross mis-representation of GPLv3, and obfuscates the real basis of argument that Apple may have in conforming to the licensing terms.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a gross mis-representation of GPLv3, and obfuscates the real basis of argument that Apple may have in conforming to the licensing terms.
Why the innuendo? Why not state exactly the thing you are alluding to?
Because it's not some sort of horrible thing. Not nearly as bad as the imaginary unstated thing could be.
The problem isn't the copyright effects, it's the patent effects. Apple has no problem making source code available (in fact, they are highly active in the open source world), because there's no fear of having to give up the copyright to software they either can't or simply don't want to give up. But patents have no such easy way to pa
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't say you can't use it commercially, but it does say you have to give up rights to patents, derivative work, and derivative source code, copyrights, hardware control, etc.
And that is why companies who make money on software will stop using anything relying on GPLv3.
It prevents companies from using GPLv3 software commercially - from a business sense if not a pure licensing sense.
Re:No, it doesn't say that AT ALL. (Score:4, Insightful)
How in the hell is that not giving up rights to your patents?
Because it's not giving up all rights to all patents - it's giving up specific rights to specific patents. By using GPLv3'ed Samba, Apple would be allowing use of any patents that Apple has that apply to Samba, by other people in their use of GPLed Samba. If Apple isn't willing to do that, i.e., it's not willing to let other people use Samba, then it damn well shouldn't have the right to use Samba itself.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Informative)
woops, OK. It appears GPLv3 allows commercial use. The summary got it wrong? (surprise!)
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Devil's advocate here:
The downside to the GPL3 is that companies notice one product or piece of code with the v3 license, then their legal team gets scared, throws the baby out with the bathwater and starts over with a closed source product.
I have known one business which produced embedded controllers move from Linux to Windows CE just because their legal eagles feared that the GPL v3.x would force them to give up their trade secrets of some manufacturing methods to any customers that asked.
All and all, I'd would say the GPL v2 is/was the best balance between being able to do what one wanted and redistributing, versus keeping code available for subsequent users. GPL v3 was made with good intentions, but instead of the intended outcome of killing DRM and dealing with patents, it has gotten some businesses to completely dump F/OSS completely and move to closed source systems.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
You're either for software freedom or your not. GPL restricts what you can, therefor is not free.
This kind of "either you see it my way our you're wrong" statement is NOT a good argument.
There are real reasons why the GPL versions (and other licenses) are problematic for various folks, and this kind of assertion acknowledges none of them.
You can learn the factual basis for arguments against or in favor of various open source or free software licenses at the OSI site [opensource.org] and at the FSF site [gnu.org].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're either for software freedom or your not. GPL restricts what you can, therefor is not free.
This kind of "either you see it my way our you're wrong" statement is NOT a good argument.
GP didn't make a qualitative categorization of the rightness or wrongness of either position. You did that.
Re: (Score:3)
"either you see it my way our you're wrong"
Isn't that pretty much what RMS and FSF say?
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
You're either for personal freedom or you're not. Civil rights stop me from enslaving people, therefore I'm not free.
If I release some "free software", then someone else comes along and entangles it with their own proprietary software and adds their own restrictions, then the part that is my contribution is no longer free. The software itself is not free, in the same way that a slave is not free. The software has been enslaved. So allowing people to do whatever they want to my software is contrary to my software's freedom.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
How did they take your "free software"? Isn't that still available? People here like to point out that you can't steal bits, so the bits of your "free software" must still be in your possession.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem comes with the intention of allowing the user to modify and use the software. The GPLv2 allowed them to do an end run where you could modify and use the software, but never on the device that it was distributed on.
This was corrected in GPLv3, and control-freak assholes are having a problem with it.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just control freaks that have a problem with it. It's also security-conscious engineering teams. Those bits of GPLv3 betray a fundamental lack of understanding of the need for proper code signing.
First of all, there is no good way to prevent unsigned virus code from running without preventing unsigned user code from running on a device. The last thing you want is a news story talking about how your phone has been compromised by a virus that spreads across the cell network by SMS and has turned your entire ecosystem into the cell phone equivalent of WinZombies. This goes triply for daemons like Samba, which represent prime attack vectors into home and corporate computers, and thus are in desperate need of signature checks.
Unfortunately, any OS vendor that wants to deploy Samba cannot require that it be signed by a proper, valid code signing cert because those cost money, and would represent an additional restriction on the end user's ability to recompile Samba and run the new version. This makes the GPLv3 fundamentally antithetical to proper security as written, at least by my reading. And I'm not the only one who interprets it this way.
More to the point, you cannot create an arbitrarily open ecosystem that allows for anyone to get a code signing cert from anywhere, as this gives you no additional protection over not requiring signing. If you can get a free cert that allows you to run code on arbitrary hardware, then a a virus writer can, too. Thus, the infrastructure must inherently be designed so that third-party code can be authorized on a per-device basis. This is nontrivial, and costs money to maintain. Yet the GPLv3 would require that such a service be free to use in order to comply with a strict reading of its terms. Clearly, this is an untenable position.
In short, this isn't a knee jerk reaction by a bunch of control freaks. Quite the opposite, really. The GPLv3 was a poorly thought out knee jerk reaction to a bunch of control freaks that had a negative impact on consumers. So although I understand why the GPL proponents want these clauses, in the end, they're doing a disservice to themselves and to the community by policies that effectively prevent the proper use of signed binaries.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Citation needed on the "need" for code signing. But in any case, allowing users to install their own certificates alongside the manufacturer's would allow signed binaries and also allow the user to run software compiled by themselves; that is, it would allow users to control their own hardware.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed we agree; my mistake.
Re: (Score:3)
freedom != anarchy
If I am free to live, that implies there is a restriction against murder.
Don't confuse freedom with anarchy. Anarchy sucks. Slavery was abolished, and as a result, you _cannot_ sell yourself into slavery. Yes, that is a restriction, to preserve your freedom.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
You are either for freedom, that stops at the next user, or you are for freedom, that continues after the next person.
"Feel free to beat up anyone you meet" is no freedom either.
GPL = free code || BSD = free people (Score:5, Insightful)
GPL = code must be free
BSD= people must be free to do what they want with the code
Re:GPL = free code || BSD = free people (Score:4, Informative)
Code is property
Interesting, because when last I checked, the relevant sections of law -- copyright and patent -- were neither property laws nor laws protecting natural rights. Then again, IANAL.
Version 3 which is anti-commercial
Completely false; go check with Red Hat if you think GPLv3 is anti-commercial.
Is RMS completely ignorant of the fact that many of these projects received a lot of commercial support in the past and that Version 3 is basically a big middle finger directed at them? Is he out to destroy the FOSS movement by alienating some of its largest contributors?
No, RMS is neither ignorant nor is the GPLv3 harmful to business. The Free Software Foundation has always had the protection of user freedoms as its primary goal, and while the GPLv2 served that goal for a long time, there were certain loopholes that some companies were exploiting -- loopholes that the GPLv3 corrected. Having the right to study and modify code is meaningless if your computer prevents you from running your modified code, and software patents could be used to deny you the right to redistribute your code.
Corporations are as able as they have ever been to sell, sponsor, and benefit from software licensed under GPLv3; little has changed since the GPLv2. Corporations that seek to maliciously exploit loopholes (TiVo) may have a problem, but most corporations do not do that and will be largely unaffected by the move. If you are granting your users the freedoms the GPL is designed to protect, then GPLv3 is not a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
And banning slavery restricts what sorts of property you're allowed to own, therefore a state that doesn't allow slave ownership is not free.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
You're either for software freedom or your not. GPL restricts what you can, therefor is not free.
Well, maybe. But it does seem reasonable that, if you're gonna take a "free" product and resell it, you should share some of your profits with the product's original producers.
The GPL has taken this attitude toward "free" from the start. You can have it for free if you promise to pass it on to others on the same terms. But if you want to grab someone else's work and make a profit from it, you have to buy it (and get a license to resell it).
See, it's sort of a "tit for tat" thing. If you want it to be free, you have to keep it free; if you want to be paid for it, you have to pay for it.
(For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, note that most GPL'd software is available from the authors with other licenses. The GPL doesn't preclude providing the software with other licenses. It basically just exists to guarantee that if you don't pay for the software, you can't charge others for it. But most of the authors are quite willing to give you a license to sell their software for profit, if you are willing to share those profits with the authors.)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Having a single primary rule (with a small set of rules designed to support that rule) does not make you a dictator.
Re: (Score:3)
How?
The BSD code is still out there. The proprietary commercial code that used the BSD code is not the BSD code.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Those who release code under a BSD license know that down-stream users can take the code wholesale, or make modifications, and do with it what they will. Those people aren't complaining about it. The only people who seem to make an issue out of it are people who haven't or wouldn't release code under a BSD license. Licenses are essentially a religious debate at this point, so please pardon my analogy when I say that pretending there is a debate on the BSD license is like pretending their is a debate on ID vs Evolution. Only one side is interested in having a debate, and that means there is no debate.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
How does that support the view that the GPL is bad?
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
That depends upon your version of 'free'.
GPL forces the freedom of derivatives, BSD retains the freedom to make non-free derivatives.
To some, without the enforced 'freedom' it's not truly free. To others, with the enforced freedom it's not really free.
This isn't an argument anybody is about to win.
Enforced freedom is the brilliance of GPL (Score:3)
BSD isn't bad per se, but it allows a 'bad player' like Microsoft to modify standards in ways that break interoperability. If you are attempting to write standards-compliant code, and you don't want that code to be used to sabotage the very standards you're trying to support, then the BSD's not for you.
GPL cleverly prevents such a situation. It strikes a nice balance between commercial interests (ability to charge for products based on the code) and the ongoing freedom of the original writer to have the b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Free for whom?
The GPL protects the *freedom of the code*, not the freedom of developers. Hence the term free software. The BSD allows you to lock the code down, and release binaries only and so is not as good at protecting the freedom of the code.
I really can not fathom that this logic still eludes people. So many assume that it is about their own freedom and so misses the point of the GPL entirely.
And besides, if you want to give freedom to developers, release as Public Domain for crying out loud.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
GPL is bad.
Bullshit.
Bullshit. BSD license is much more free than GPL.
He didn't say it was "more free", he said it wasn't bad.
BSD is more free, but does little to promote freedom itself. GPL is less free, but it more strongly promotes freedom. Neither is better than the other except when considered in specific contexts. If you ignore context and make a blanket statement about which is freer, you are making a religious argument.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
And under the GPLv3, you can still do whatever YOU want. The exception comes when you redistribute, because at that point it's not YOU using it, it's SOMEONE ELSE.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
What?
The GPLv3 prevents someone from redistributing GPL'd software and saying to the end user "you cannot replace this software, you cannot alter or modify it in place." The only people who have a problem with the GPLv3 are those who enjoyed making an end-run around the spirit of the GPLv2 by distributing source but crippling the hardware it was used on.
Re: (Score:3)
he only people who have a problem with the GPLv3 are those who enjoyed making an end-run around the spirit of the GPLv2 by distributing source but crippling the hardware it was used on.
Well, the union of that set and the set of people who had the same problem with GPLv2.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Informative)
What I want is the ability to use it and not be told my customers can't.
So long as you pass on to your customers the benefits that you gained by adopting GPL'd software, no problem. They can use it. If you want to pass on a version with additional restrictions on what they can do with the software, then no, you can't do that. And that's the entire point of the GPL. Is it so hard to understand?
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
then no, you can't do that
As soon as you utter that phrase, whatever it is you're talking about ceases to be free.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, please reread the whole sentence:
If you want to pass on a version with additional restrictions on what they can do with the software, then no, you can't do that.
"Freedom" does not mean, and never has meant, that you can do whatever you want. The problem is that to allow that will inevitably force someone else to give up their own freedom to do whatever they want. You have to balance the freedoms.
And that's exactly what was said. The GPL prevents placing restrictions on other peoples freedom. A restriction to prevent further restrictions.
You may not like how the GPL decided to balance freedom, but its approach is completely valid.
Re: (Score:3)
And that is exactly why Apple can't use this on the iPhone.
And OS X Lion doesn't run on the iPhone.
GPL is not the problem. (Score:3)
Errr. what?
I don't completely understand the problem here.
The GPLv3 issues in this particular case shoot way over my head. But, the GPL isn't the problem.
WP7 isn't being supported by ZTE and other bulk low-to-mid-end OEMs because of it's licensing requirements(namely, money; and the fact that WP7 hasn't moved a lot of phones).
h.264 is being cross licensed mostly due to patent AND compatibility issues. GPL isn't the core of this issue. Getting sued by the MPEG LA is.
GPL is the solution. If you want your
Re: (Score:3)
MPEG-LA can't sue you. Individual patent holders can - they're a licensing authority - they offer a bunch of patent licenses for a set fee to everyone. You are free to implement your own h.264 stuff and not license the patents from MPEG-LA, instead opting to license the patents individually from all the patent holders. Of course, licensing that many patents is going
Re:GPL is not the problem. (Score:5, Informative)
Samba isn't owned by one entity, and so re-licensing under special terms isn't possible. It's one of the advantages (or disadvantages, depending on your point of view :-) of having distributed copyright ownership.
I won't say who offered, but tridge was once offered a multi-million deal to "sell" Samba to a networking company (a long time ago, before people understood what Free Software/Open Source really meant :-).
Jeremy.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, if you try to promote freedom and free code, you have to allow people to use it how they want.
No, sir, you are confusing liberty with "no charge" free.
The BSD license is free as in beer. A proprietary software developer may take BSD licensed software and use it as the basis for a project of their own without sharing code in return. The users of his software have less liberty to the software's use. That developer exchanges nothing of value for the code that he received.
The GPL license is free as in liberty. Developers who wish to base products on existing GPL software must agree to maintain the liberty of the derived software's users to use the software with the same liberties that the developer did. This is an exchange of something of value: the developer contributes their own code in exchange for receiving the GPL code.
GPL software is not intended to be free of charge to developers who wish to reuse it. Developers who choose the GPL software do not intend to provide their labor without charge to others who will not contribute in return. The GPL promotes liberty, not freeloading.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Informative)
The BSD license is free as in beer.
I don't think you understand what "free in as beer" means. When something is free as in beer, you are welcome to drink as much of it as you want for no charge. You don't get the recipe to the beer, you aren't given the ingredients, you don't get a say in how the beer should taste or could be tweaked for the better.
Closed source software that doesn't doesn't have licensing costs is the analogy described by "free as in beer."
The GPL license is free as in liberty.
Both the GPL and the BSD are free as in liberty, because you are given the code and permission and customize it to do what you want.
In my opinion, the GPL is less free than the BSD license because my liberty becomes limited when I want to distribute my changes in the application to others. With BSD, I'm given the liberty to license the software how I want and I'm given the liberty of not having to provide my source code to others. For a lot of the work that I do, that becomes a big deal -- I can provide software or a service without having to worry about the extra effort required to release something as GPL.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Informative)
No, they have the liberty to disagree. They are then subject to copyright which by default disallows them to distribute copies of the software.
There is nothing "jacked up" about this.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I fully support your right to put restrictions on how I can modify or distribute something you created. Calling these restrictions "liberty," however, is just Orwellian doublespeak.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently you don't.
So it's "orwellian" to insist that the people who receive my software, via you, have the same rights as you did, and can use altered versions of it freely in place of the versions you gave them?
Man, you have a fucked up definition of "orwellian." Or perhaps standing up for the freedoms of others is simply antiquated to you. But then, I get the impression that control freaks don't like end-users having freedom, and thus the GPLv3 is inherently reprehensible to them.
Re: (Score:3)
I do. Create whatever restrictions you like. I don't have to use your code.
Not at all; that's not even what I said.
What I said is that it's "Orwellian doublespeak" to use the word "liberty" to describe a scheme where you've set restrictions on how I can use and distribute something.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
That's because it's not liberty for YOU (that's already been granted) but for whomever gets it from you. Stop being so greedy and self-centered with your thought process.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I fully support your right to put restrictions on how I can modify or distribute something you created. Calling these restrictions "liberty," however, is just Orwellian doublespeak.
You don't have the 'liberty' to enslave other people either. Restrictions sometimes limit the liberty someone might take away from other people.
Re: (Score:3)
So is society's restrictions against murder then, according to your definition.
Thing is, we have deemed legalized murder to result in less actual freedoms for people than they'd have with it illegal, so we've declared that a society can promote freedom and liberty while keeping murder illegal without it being a contradiction.
Same goes for allowing redistributors to put their own restrictions in place.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, telling all those congressmen that they "must agree" to uphold the constitution, you'll never get liberty through coercion like that!
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Where all of you GPL-haters keep failing in this argument is that you want to deny rights to software makers. You have to understand that whoever wrote a piece of software owns copyright on it, and can distribute it how they see fit.
If I write a piece of software, I'm free to take one of 3 basic distribution options relevant to the debate:
1) Keep it proprietary, give the code to nobody. Sell compiled versions for money, and/or license the source under NDA to others for money.
2) Give it away under a BSD license (or just make it Public Domain). Anyone can use my software for anything, commercial or not. It's a gift to the world.
3) Give it away under a GPL license. Anyone can use my software for anything, commercial or not. HOWEVER, I stipulate that if you make further enhancements to my code, if you then give the resulting binary to other parties, you are required to also give them a copy of your enhancements in source code form.
None of the options are more or less moral than the others. Licensing code under the GPL does not steal anyone's liberties. It fails to provide you with a liberty you would get if the code were licensed under BSD, but in either case these rights are GRANTED to you by the COPYRIGHT HOLDER. It's a gift either way, and you're saying by failing to give everyone a big enough gift, GPL authors are somehow stealing people's liberties. Bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
GPL seeks to maximise liberty for the end user.
BSD seeks to maximise liberty for the developer.
Both promote a kind of freedom, just for different parties. That's the way it is in the real world, liberties for different parties are balanced against each other.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't, actually, have the liberty to go on a killing spree, because it turns out that we have laws against that.
Re: (Score:3)
But why do we have such laws? To protect others' liberty to live.
Absolute freedom is impossible to achieve. Claiming that the GPL is more free than BSD is absurd. Claiming that BSD is more free than GPL is shortsighted.
Personally, I think the GPL gives a more fair set of freedoms to each party.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
GPL is like promoting free speech until someone saids something YOU don't like. True freedom is letting people do what they want.
The GPL requires that whoever you give the code to - in source or binary form - is just as free to use the code as you were. The way you are "more free" with the BSD is to make others less free, obviously you are more free if your right to swing your fist doesn't end at my nose. Being able to own slaves is a freedom for the slave holder. Except we don't want those kinds of freedoms, because they make others less free. BSD makes Apple more free and OS X users less free than under the GPL. The GPL may not be the absolute and total freedom, but it is the equal and fair freedom.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, if you try to promote freedom and free code, you have to allow people to use it how they want.
Exactly. GPLed software can be freely run, studied, modified, and redistributed with modifications. Apple refuses to provide its users with these freedoms, so they cannot use GPLed software.
If you try to define what's allowed and try to get people to do or not to do what YOU want them, you aren't promoting free code. Your code is just as "bad" as proprietary code.
GPL only restricts your ability to take freedom away from your end user. Yes, GPLes software is "bad" for you if you are intending to take the freedoms from your end user. GPL is not "bad" for the software's user in any way shape or form, only for those who would rather abuse copyright and derive monopoly profits from other people's charitable work (e.g. Apple from BSD). Do you seriously not get it?
GPL is like promoting free speech until someone saids something YOU don't like.
And now even a semblance of a rational argument is gone and what you have left is hot air. GPL has nothing to do with freedom of expression (just like copyright, according to the US Supreme Court, has nothing to do with freedom of speech), and everything to do with building a hedge around the public domain. The robber barons stole our public domain by making the copyright terms practically infinite and applying obscene statutory damages to non-commercial violators. Licenses like GPL are legal hacks which help to restore the balance present in the original copyright legislation: creators get some VERY limited distribution monopoly, everyone else gets more and better software.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:5, Informative)
Either way, Apple wasn't planning on letting people modify the version of CIFS they shipped, or contribute fixes back to the Samba tree, so no real loss there. Long story short, we learned something about Apple's ideology and nothing more.
Wrong [nabble.com] : "Apple has been updating and hardening a branch of the Open Group's DCE/RPC library. We'd decided to share
these changes with the community at large and will continue to invest in modernizing and advancing this
code base. The goal is to establish a common, authoritative DCE/RPC codebase that everyone can leverage
or contribute to, under very liberal terms.
We have published Apple's contributions at http://www.dcerpc.org./ [www.dcerpc.org] Please check out the web site for any
more details. We are looking for someone to port it to the various Linux SMB implementations.
Regards,
James Peach and George Colley
Apple"
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:4, Funny)
This is why I support true open source licenses that allow both free and proprietary use. They are the real free licenses, not GPL, and unless we deal with that hypocricy Microsoft will always win.
So which licenses are those? even the 3-clause BSD prevents me from claiming ownership of the code and suing other users for copyright infringement, so it's not really free either.
Re: (Score:3)
Claiming someone is a paid shill because they disagree with you is the lamest way to lose an argument.
Re:GPL is the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you have a good point there. In trying to place extra restrictions and obligations on free software GPL3 will actually reduce the usage of said software.
I don't think anybody disputes that. Simply, for some usage is not the most important goal.
With the due differences, it's like selling a car which verifies if you are drunk before it lets you drive it. Sure, it won't sell as much as other cars, but you know your cars are contributing much less than others to car accidents.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's limiting the lock down of otherwise Free Software. That it exposes corporations for being control freaks unwilling to respect end-user freedom is simply a benefit.
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't make GPL bad, what makes it bad in this situation is that it's pushed Apple to abandon Samba for use in OSX. Depending upon your point of view that may or many not be bad, but it means that the install base just shrunk up over the issue and that's not helpful in cases like this.
The project is free to choose whatever license it likes, but some licenses come with strings attached which impede the use of the software more than others.
Re: (Score:3)
Only if for some reason your "mix" includes a bunch of lock down designed to trap the user and control how they use whatever the software is installed on.
What if the lock down is designed to keep malware off of the user's device and maintain its stability, and the user is OK with that?
I bought the iPhone because it is a controlled ecosystem. I don't want my cell phone rooted. I also like the controlled updates. I have a friend with an Android phone who had an update that bricked the device, and his carri
Re: (Score:3)
Without that "social agenda", there would be not Free Software. There would be no contributors because no one would care enough about the "social agenda" to create a suitable framework where contributors feel free to add their contributions free from the fear that someone like Apple or Microsoft will come along and take unfair advantage of the work.
This "social agenda" stuff is just nonsense and FUD.
This is about CONTRIBUTORS. The GPL was created because corporations can't be trusted and CONTRIBUTORS became
Re:What does this mean for users? (Score:4, Informative)
A new set of SAMBA tools.
What's a "SAMBA tool"? Samba is the name of one particular implementation of the Server Message Block protocol; it's not the name of the protocol itself.
From Jaguar days, when a Mac that went to sleep had to be rebooted to ever reconnect to a Windows share it happily saw before, to (Snow) Leopard when they simply won't connect at all most of the time, at home or at work, even with an IP address
Those sound like client-side issues. The OS X SMB client isn't based on anything from Samba (given that it's a "kernel extension", i.e. a loadable kernel module, basing it on GPLed code would probably be a bit tricky), it's based on the FreeBSD in-kernel SMB client (but has had a lot of additional work done on it). Switching the SMB server from Samba to something else wouldn't affect that.
Re:wrong in more ways than one (Score:4, Insightful)
Also false--Apple is switching away from GCC because it's clunky, slow, outdated, and the GCC team is hostile to Apple's extensions and does not want Apple's contributions--every developer I know has been very much looking forward to being able to drop GCC and use LLVM.
I think it is a bit of both. Apple has stopped with gcc 4.2 while adding massive amounts of work to LLVM; they could probably have upgraded to a much later version from a technical point of view, but didn't want to for licensing reasons. On the other hand, LLVM is now reaching the point where it is superior to gcc in every respect (massively better compile times, much better error messages, all the compile time information available to the editor and much more) and allows compilation at runtime (great for OpenCL). And it seems that it has a much saner code base that can be improved much easier.
Re:wrong in more ways than one (Score:4, Informative)
I agree on technical points. GCC is a mess of a code base to work with; good luck with anyone trying to port it. LLVM is not so bad in that respect. I could whip out a proof-of-concept port to a new architecture over a week of work, never having looked at LLVM before. I gave up the same task on gcc codebase after two weeks: it was an incomprehensible mess.