3 ms·
Nothing prevents redistribution, v3 seems to be equal to v2 in all the code sharing requirements. The two big-ticket additions seem to be the prevention of "tiv
by pedrocr 16y ago
Nothing prevents redistribution, v3 seems to be equal to v2 in all the code sharing requirements. The two big-ticket additions seem to be the prevention of "tivoization" by having to distribute the keys to sign software to run on the device you distribute with GPLv3 software in it, and the requirement that if you grant some users a license to one of your patents you're granting that to every user of the GPLv3 software you distribute.
One reason Apple would care is it is now shipping a bunch of locked down hardware (the iDevices). Although those probably don't run Samba right now they may have set up a general policy to not have that risk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Version_3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Vers...
- yuhong 16y agoI remember discussing this on a GCC mailing list back in mid-2008.
- tzs 16y agoA bigger problem may be licenses to other people's patents. Suppose Apple distributes Samba, and suppose someone NOT Apple owns a patent that Samba infringers. That party sues Apple, and it becomes clear to Apple that they are going to lose. Let's also assume Apple's Samba has some changes, so it is not 100% identical to the upstream. It looks like GPLv3 only gives Apple the option of stopping distributing Samba, or of finding a way to get a patent license that covers everyone who obtains a copy of Samba that can be traced back to Apple. The latter could get very expensive.