Forget our war of words. It looks like Apple and the FSF can't get along at the moment.
http://lwn.net/Articles/405417/ I apologise for my confusion as it does appear to be a problem between Apple and the FSF. Cheers, Stephen On 31/10/2010, at 5:29 AM, John H Terpstra <j...@samba.org> wrote: > On 10/30/2010 12:00 PM, Stephen Norman wrote: >> >> On 31/10/2010, at 1:03 AM, John H Terpstra <j...@samba.org> wrote: >> >>> On 10/30/2010 02:48 AM, Stephen Norman wrote: >>>> This may have been raised before and if so I apologise for not >>>> being able to find it. >>> >>> No apology needed. We can discuss this topic on this list. >>> >>>> I was wondering if someone on the list can please explain the >>>> relationship that GPLv3 has in preventing Apple from >>>> distributing updated builds with their operating systems. I've >>>> read over the GPLv3 (I'm not lawyer or anything) and I would >>>> guess it has something to do with the patent agreements? >>> >>> Why do you believe Apple cannot make use of Samba? That is a very >>> different question from why they might refuse to use it. The word >>> "prevention" implies a "cannot" element as opposed to a business >>> decision not to use it. Objection for business reasons is like >>> choosing not to purchase something as opposed to not being able to >>> purchase it for one reason or another. >>> >>> Licensing terms form a contractual boundary to accepted use of a >>> created work in order to preserve the intent (wishes) of those who >>> labored to create it. >>> >>> Samba is the result of many hundreds of man-years of work that was >>> freely contributed for the benefit of all, subject to the specific >>> terms of use that are set out in the GPL. Even if every business on >>> planet Earth should choose not to use it in their products what >>> would be the loss to it creators? >> >> "Prevention" may have been a poor choice of words here. I guess what >> I'm asking is, if Apple was to ship Samba 3.2 or above with their OS, >> what other parts of the OS (if any) would need to be released under >> GPLv3? For instance, if Finder used some part of Samba in it would it >> too need to be made available as GPLv3? > > The Samba team does not force anyone to use samba. If someone chooses > to use it they must comply with its licensing terms. All derivatives of > Samba fall under the same license that samba is under - that is what the > GPL seeks to achieve. The GPL seeks to prevent the misuse and > misappropriation of software source code. Its that simple. You may not > like that, and indeed Apple may not like that, but that's the way it is. > > Please keep in mind that to use or not to use is a choice! > >>> >>>> I'll admit that I'm not too happy with the GPLv3 and think that, >>>> ironically, it is in many ways as restrictive (and in some ways >>>> even more so) than closed source software. That's only my opinion >>>> though and I understand where it may be useful. >>> >>> Please help us to understand what changes to the licensing terms >>> will cause more people to contribute their labors to its >>> improvement and assure its wider use. What must the creators of >>> Samba give up in order to be successful? What does success look >>> like? How will Apple benefit from this change? How will these >>> benefits help the creators of Samba to better achieve their goals >>> and objectives? >>> >>> If you can convince the authors of Samba that the benefits of being >>> more successful will outweigh what the world will lose you will get >>> a certain hearing. In other words, what must the Samba developers >>> give up and what will be their gain by doing this? >> >> I definitely see your point here so I'll try and explain. >> >> Apple is one of the largest users of open source software in the >> world, with over 50 million users each using open source software. By >> largest users, I mean the software is on people's machine (server >> side projects like Apache would have much greater numbers). That is a >> large number and second only to Microsoft Windows. They have been an >> advocate for open source software, shipping a number of technologies, >> including Samba in Mac OS X for almost a decade. They helped >> kickstart software technologies including Ruby on Rails by being the >> first to ship the software with the OS, something which continues to >> be the case today. > > Let's make sure that credit is given where it is due. For all the good > things any corporation or individual does let's say thank you - AND - > remember to comply with the license terms under which the contribution > was made. If we do not like the license terms, ask for reconsideration > by all means, but do not demand it. The author has rights of > determination over his/her works. > >> I'm not sure how many users use Samba worldwide, but I'd think that >> the potential loss of such a number would have been considered during >> the license transition. After all, Apple aren't going to use code in >> their OS that might require them to open source some of their key >> technologies, such as the Finder or Workgroup Manager. > > Please check your facts. Anyone who produces a derivative work from a > licensed software application must comply with the original authors' or > licensors' terms and conditions. Remember, noone forces anyone to create > a derivative work! Only derivative works are affected. > >> Instead, Apple will be forced to either fork the old code base of >> Samba (something no one wants) or develop their own implementation of >> CIFS/SMB that isn't covered under the GPL. > > Rubbish! Complete gibberish! Is their derivative a derivative? If yes, > then comply. If not, they are on their own with complete freedom to > choose their own licensing terms. Keep it simple - it really is simple! > >> GCC's change to GPLv3 forced Apple to find an entirely new compiler >> infrastructure, Clang/LLVM, which arguably is actually an improvement >> over GCC in many ways. The problem for the GCC people is that their >> are now going to be 50 million of their users potentially moving to a >> new compiler and that isn't counting other projects such as FreeBSD >> and other BSD derivatives. The flow on affect could be quiet large, >> and while GCC isn't going away any time soon, the potential for it to >> be superseded by LLVM is certainly there. > > Specifically who "forced" Apple to change? Please name the person who > tried to coerce them to not use GCC under GPLv3. It was a choice Apple > made for reasons only they understand fully. > >> I'd hate to see the open source community end up being divided into a >> GPLv3 zone and one that has everyone else. It would then prove many >> anti open-source advocates (i am not one of them) a reason to show >> how open source doesn't always work. > > The world has always been divided into opinion camps. Please keep in > mind that when all is said and done, there is much more said than done! > > What does the statement "open source dosen't always work" really mean? > What presuppositions are implied by that proposition? Have you > seriously considered this? > >> In relation to Samba (I'll play devils advocat here), the question on >> my mind woud be, how does using software that already exists in the >> community and is well liked and tested useful to my project if using >> that code actually results in me having restrictions placed on what I >> can do with my code, just because I linked to some pre-existing >> code? > > The point is that you decided to link to someone else's work. It was > your choice! Noone forced you to do that. > >> I realise a lot of the changes made in GPLv3 relate to patents, but >> I'd say that it would make better business sense to most companies to >> license a technology (such as SMB) from Microsoft and then be allowed >> to include it in my product, which they can then sell and support, >> rather than being forced to release their code for free. > > That's a business choice. Let's see how long that will fly! > >> Finally, companies such as Apple are going to have to deal with >> problems such as Windows 7 compatibilty in their products, something >> which the old version of Samba 3.0 seems to have trouble with, and if >> they find they are unwilling to update to a later version because of >> the requirements of the new license, then they may have to switch to >> a different technology or license it from Microsoft. That might make >> Microsoft happy but it would be a big blow for the Samba project, >> especially if it meant the loss of over 50 million potential users. > > Specifics please! What is the COST to the Samba project is commercial > vendor ceases to use Samba? How will it affect use of Samba by private > individuals? You have not convinced anyone here that there is a > quantifiable loss involved. > > You have presented a convincing argument that companies that elect not > to use open source software and instead enter into a licensing > arrangement will cause their customers (consumers) to pay more for their > products. Remember though, this is a choice the corporation or business > makes. It is simply a business decision. They are free to make that > decision. Businesses are not compelled to explain to their customers > why they choose to create their products in a certain manner. If the > customer does not like what is offered to them they have the freedom of > choice not to purchase and not to use it. > >> I hope that helps clarify the kind of direction in which I was >> heading. > > No, I have heard your fear of damage to the long-term viability of the > open source world but so far you have presented FUD (fear, uncertainty > and doubt) - we need facts please. > >>> >>>> Regardless of my opinion, I would like to know about GPLv3 vs. >>>> Apple Mac OS X and if there are any plans (i.e. Samba 4) that >>>> would allow the software to again be shipped with the operating >>>> system. >>> >>> Samba4 is part of the Samba3 code tree. All of Samba will continue >>> to ship under the terms of the GPLv3 until such time as the authors >>> see good reason for change. We respect the right of anyone (person >>> or company) to use or not to use Samba. >>> >>> I would like to see more people benefit from our efforts and our >>> labors. I believe that the GPLv3 is the best way that our users can >>> continue to receive those benefits. The Samba team has chosen to >>> license under the terms of the GPLv3. >> >> I think Samba is an amazing project and I don't want to detract from >> that at all. I personally think that compelling companies to release >> their code under the GPLv3 for using a small part of GPLv3 code is >> against the principals of open source software in general. After all, >> the original purpose (and I think the general public opinion) is that >> open source means I can take code, include it in my project and sell >> that project to customers as long as I give any changes I make to the >> source code of the project back to the community. > > The GPL in all its forms is a license. If you do not like the license > do not use the software. It is very simple. Think about the freedom > here please: you are free to use GPL code and you if you do, just like > any other license requirement you are bound by its terms of use. It is > your choice to use it or not to use it. If you use it contrary to its > license terms please do not complain about your choice - you made it! > >> I guess the biggest problem is that no one seems to be clear on some >> of the points of the GPLv3. > > Rubbish! Many people do not like its restrictions but complain loudly. > Do we hear complaints about other commercial licensing terms? If not, > why not? > > Remember, commercial licenses are all about business. The purpose of a > commercial license is to garner revenue from the customer. Anyone who > is not a customer has no rights of use. Simple! > > The GPL gives everyone free rights of use, subject to its terms. Which > would you prefer? It's your choice. The GPLv3 was issued to assure that > software that is protected under its terms of use will continue to be > protected, and that derivative works can not disenfranchise the original > authors of their work. > >> For example, if GPLv3 code is used in the >> Finder, does that mean that all of Mac OS X must be released under >> the GPL or just the code in the Finder? And how does that effect me >> as a a developer. If Apple produces a framework, such as CoreAudio >> and I link against it when I'm developing my application, and that >> framework uses GPL code, does that then require me to release my code >> under the GPLv3, meaning I cannot sell it to customers? I'm guessing >> that's what Steve Balmer was referring to when he spoke about GPLv3 >> being viral in nature. > > Is your work a derivative of a previous work? What are the license terms > of the software you are deriving benefits from? Best you abide by those > terms, or else choose to create your software some other way. It is > still a very simple matter of choice! > >> Now all this might be for naught if I'm wrong and I may be, but I >> think that the uncertaintly that clouds around the GPLv3, mostly >> because of the wording and because it hasn't been challenged in court >> (yet), is going to raise some concern in the community. > > The only uncertainty that exists is the cloud of FUD that is spread by > people who want freedom from licensing terms of use, and yet wish to > impose their own terms of use on others. Can you not see that? > > I am sure you have read the GPLv3. I am convinced you have done much > homework. Please take up your concerns with the GPLv3 with the Free > Software Foundation. If you would like Samba to be licensed under some > other license, please present a compelling factually-based case that > clearly demonstrates the benefits to the Samba developers and to the > Samba user community to convince us to change. We will listen to sound > reason that is well documented and clearly presented. > > - John T. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba