On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Stephen Norman <stenorman2...@me.com> wrote: > Apologies for the previous message. Its what happens at 4 in the morning! > > On 31/10/2010, at 4:47 AM, Stephen Norman <stenorman2...@me.com> wrote:
> I've read and Googled quiet extensively regarding GPLv3 before posting and > find it offensive for anyone to think I'd post the question otherwise. Most > of the documentation provided around GPLv3 can only be truly understood by > someone with an insight into the law covering such licenses. You do seem to be re-iterating what are common concerns about GPLv3, ones that are not borne out by other experience with open source licenses, especially GPL. versions. The GPLv3 is a logical extension of previous GPL's to prevent precisely the sort of "sealed applicance" and patent encumbered product riding on top of previous open source development. Tivo's are a great example of this, as are Netgear cable modems. Storage applicances using Samba are a very obvious candidate for similar abuses of GPL, using Samba's GPL code to build an appliance, and patent encumbering it to prevent access to the actual applicance software and to block development with it. Take a good look at those inexpensive Terabyte network storage devices. A lot of them are actually running Samba under the hood, and most of them are good about providing source code access. But without GPLv3, any software patents could encumber and prevent us, as owners of such a device, from rebuilding it. > The two points I've seen repeated over and over again in my browsing is the > confusion people have in what constitutes "derivative work" and the concern > over the fact that there is yet to be (at least reported) of a legal case > involving GPLv3. I believe they are legitimate concerns that anyone should be > allowed to have and certainly shouldn't be considered FUD. In time, GPLv3 > will probably become as widely accepted as GPLv2. I think everyone can agree > that software freedom is important, even if the implementations often differ. And now you're re-iterating the FUD. The GPLv3 is not that hard to follow: it seems a clear statement of privileges already corroborated in copyright and patent law. It's being used in a fascinating judo way: to discredit it requires discrediting many millions of dollars of already existing patent property, and would effectively open up *other* people's previously protected, patented software to otherwise violating use. Samba seems a fabulous toolkit to apply it to: network storage appliances are precisely where encumbering patents could be easily inserted by the vendors to take advantage of Samba's free software development, but block access to their development work by others. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba