6 ms·

Samba is GPLv3, this is GPLv2 so they may be serving different communities ultimately. At least where I am GPLv2 - folks are MUCH more comfortable with that. N

Samba is GPLv3, this is GPLv2 so they may be serving different communities ultimately. At least where I am GPLv2 - folks are MUCH more comfortable with that. Not sure but one area would be embedded devices (think security camera with a SD card in it). This would really let them serve a file share for video browsing, without having to give out their keys to the devices themselves (GPLv3 is both viral and has all sorts of what are called anti-tivoisation provisions that means developers are more limited in what they can do with the code in terms of use).

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
> anti-tivoisation provisions that means developers are more limited in what they can do with the code in terms of use Developers are only "limited" from locking users out of their own device
- slownews45 5y ago
  We need to be CRYSTAL clear here. Developers are the ones contributing to these open source projects. Developers are the ones picking which licenses to use (and which software to develop with). Developers or their employers etc are setting the terms of sale with their user or regulatory agencies around product sales (which duty cycle limits, thermal cutoffs, RPM governors on engines, speed limits on vehicles like scooters and the list goes on and on). Historically, open source didn't not have a restriction on use. In other words, even if Linus doesn't like military stuff, some govt contractor could use linux in a submarine. Similarly, if Linus things Trump was an idiot, he couldn't block trump from using Linux. Similarly, if a developer needed to set power emission limits on a device they shipped, or a governor or anything else they could lock the device so that user couldn't change power limits or duty cycles or other parameters. This is in many cases critical to these product sales. Especially in industrial applications (but even automotive), the mfg and their developers often DOES NOT want users messing with the duty cycles, temp limit cutouts or other issues. GPLv3 changes the calculation hugely here. Mfg's used to be basically free to use the software how they wanted, they just had to give back to other developers. Under GPLv3 all this changes. GPLv3 requires folks to unlock devices, give up encryption keys. Because it is developers deciding on the licenses being used, GPLv3 is MUCH less acceptable to a lot of developers who don't want to be blocked from using projects they contribute to in the ways they or their employer wants. So this is a very real limit on developers freedoms here. We keep on hearing from GPLv3 folks how much better the GPLv3 is - I and others disagree -it's a fundamental change to the GPL historic intent and function.
  - sa1 5y ago
    The intent of FSF was always to protect user freedoms - where users can also be developers - and not to protect developer freedoms - where developers are a separate class from users.
    - slownews45 5y ago
      GPLv2 was share and share alike. Developers could work together on common software, and then each use it how they wanted within their orgs. It also helped drive down proprietary forks. Regardless of FSF desires, this is how it was used. As GPLv3 was getting developed (in secret largely) communities like the Linux community started picking up on the big change coming and updated their license to be clear that Linux for example is GPLv2 ONLY (!) to avoid having the FSF change the usage and rules of their project on them.
      - jra_samba 5y ago
        > As GPLv3 was getting developed (in secret largely) The above is incorrect. GPLv3 was developed via a completely open process of development, documented very well here: https://opensource.com/article/18/6/gplv3-anniversary https://opensource.com/article/18/6/gplv3-anniversary Apple lawyers participated. From the above link: "Lawyers representing vendors' and commercial users' interests provided useful suggestions for improvements from a legal and commercial perspective, but these often took the form of making simply worded provisions more verbose, arguably without net increases in clarity. .. One lasting contribution of GPLv3 concerns changed expectations for how revisions of widely-used FOSS licenses are done. It is no longer acceptable for such licenses to be revised entirely in private, without opportunity for comment from the community and without efforts to consult key stakeholders."
        slownews45 5y ago
        The above is correct - this would take more to cover here but I'd quickly suggest maybe watching something from active developers? You need to realize that the basic principles were NOT asked for by the major users of GPLv2. When initially discussed way before v3 they were rejected. There was no scoping of need here, certainly not by major projects like Linux. https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU?t=130 https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU?t=130 (start at beginning if you want more context). Ubuntu went through this as well, and basically had to get the FSF to (privately) say that they wouldn't enforce the key release process for tivoization against Ubuntu. It was that or use the Microsoft shim. It was just one sketchy / dicy deal after another. Crazy how wrong GPLv3 was in terms of a natural revision to v2 for developers. I doubt Linux has changed to GPLv3 or will personally, but we will see I guess. Good to see some GPLv2 options here that people can use in devices etc. And the BSD's and MIT licenses took off as a result, GPL overall lost out as a result of the v3 mess in my view (as a GPLv2 fan that's a bummer). Yes, the drafting part was "open" in the sense that lawyers got involved and the license got VERY very complex. If that's a win - go for it - most developers just passed on it.
bombcar 5y ago
Too bad it isn’t gpl2 compatible BSD so Apple could replace their shit version.
- slownews45 5y ago
  No question - that was a major regression apple side. That said, I think apple DOES ship GPLv2 code don't they? Or am I mistaken there. I thought it was GPLv3 that was toxic at apple? is there a CIFS GPLv2 or BSD client side implementation? This might not be what is needed to fix the Apple SMB situation.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    They don’t ship GPLv3 code at all - and they try there dardnest to get rid of GPLv2 if they can. The old Samba was GPL2 I think but it got too old.

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago

> anti-tivoisation provisions that means developers are more limited in what they can do with the code in terms of use Developers are only "limited" from locking users out of their own device

slownews45 5y ago
We need to be CRYSTAL clear here. Developers are the ones contributing to these open source projects. Developers are the ones picking which licenses to use (and which software to develop with). Developers or their employers etc are setting the terms of sale with their user or regulatory agencies around product sales (which duty cycle limits, thermal cutoffs, RPM governors on engines, speed limits on vehicles like scooters and the list goes on and on). Historically, open source didn't not have a restriction on use. In other words, even if Linus doesn't like military stuff, some govt contractor could use linux in a submarine. Similarly, if Linus things Trump was an idiot, he couldn't block trump from using Linux. Similarly, if a developer needed to set power emission limits on a device they shipped, or a governor or anything else they could lock the device so that user couldn't change power limits or duty cycles or other parameters. This is in many cases critical to these product sales. Especially in industrial applications (but even automotive), the mfg and their developers often DOES NOT want users messing with the duty cycles, temp limit cutouts or other issues. GPLv3 changes the calculation hugely here. Mfg's used to be basically free to use the software how they wanted, they just had to give back to other developers. Under GPLv3 all this changes. GPLv3 requires folks to unlock devices, give up encryption keys. Because it is developers deciding on the licenses being used, GPLv3 is MUCH less acceptable to a lot of developers who don't want to be blocked from using projects they contribute to in the ways they or their employer wants. So this is a very real limit on developers freedoms here. We keep on hearing from GPLv3 folks how much better the GPLv3 is - I and others disagree -it's a fundamental change to the GPL historic intent and function.
- sa1 5y ago
  The intent of FSF was always to protect user freedoms - where users can also be developers - and not to protect developer freedoms - where developers are a separate class from users.
  - slownews45 5y ago
    GPLv2 was share and share alike. Developers could work together on common software, and then each use it how they wanted within their orgs. It also helped drive down proprietary forks. Regardless of FSF desires, this is how it was used. As GPLv3 was getting developed (in secret largely) communities like the Linux community started picking up on the big change coming and updated their license to be clear that Linux for example is GPLv2 ONLY (!) to avoid having the FSF change the usage and rules of their project on them.
    - jra_samba 5y ago
      > As GPLv3 was getting developed (in secret largely) The above is incorrect. GPLv3 was developed via a completely open process of development, documented very well here: https://opensource.com/article/18/6/gplv3-anniversary https://opensource.com/article/18/6/gplv3-anniversary Apple lawyers participated. From the above link: "Lawyers representing vendors' and commercial users' interests provided useful suggestions for improvements from a legal and commercial perspective, but these often took the form of making simply worded provisions more verbose, arguably without net increases in clarity. .. One lasting contribution of GPLv3 concerns changed expectations for how revisions of widely-used FOSS licenses are done. It is no longer acceptable for such licenses to be revised entirely in private, without opportunity for comment from the community and without efforts to consult key stakeholders."
      - slownews45 5y ago
        The above is correct - this would take more to cover here but I'd quickly suggest maybe watching something from active developers? You need to realize that the basic principles were NOT asked for by the major users of GPLv2. When initially discussed way before v3 they were rejected. There was no scoping of need here, certainly not by major projects like Linux. https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU?t=130 https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU?t=130 (start at beginning if you want more context). Ubuntu went through this as well, and basically had to get the FSF to (privately) say that they wouldn't enforce the key release process for tivoization against Ubuntu. It was that or use the Microsoft shim. It was just one sketchy / dicy deal after another. Crazy how wrong GPLv3 was in terms of a natural revision to v2 for developers. I doubt Linux has changed to GPLv3 or will personally, but we will see I guess. Good to see some GPLv2 options here that people can use in devices etc. And the BSD's and MIT licenses took off as a result, GPL overall lost out as a result of the v3 mess in my view (as a GPLv2 fan that's a bummer). Yes, the drafting part was "open" in the sense that lawyers got involved and the license got VERY very complex. If that's a win - go for it - most developers just passed on it.

bombcar 5y ago

Too bad it isn’t gpl2 compatible BSD so Apple could replace their shit version.

slownews45 5y ago
No question - that was a major regression apple side. That said, I think apple DOES ship GPLv2 code don't they? Or am I mistaken there. I thought it was GPLv3 that was toxic at apple? is there a CIFS GPLv2 or BSD client side implementation? This might not be what is needed to fix the Apple SMB situation.
- bombcar 5y ago
  They don’t ship GPLv3 code at all - and they try there dardnest to get rid of GPLv2 if they can. The old Samba was GPL2 I think but it got too old.