Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNU is Not Unix Software Linux

Samba Adopts GPLv3 For Future Releases 219

Posted by kdawson from the first-trickle-in-the-flood dept.
Jeremy Allison - Sam writes with news that the Samba Team has decided to adopt the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 licenses for all future releases of Samba. Follow the link for a FAQ addressed to Samba developers and contributors. "To allow people to distinguish which Samba version is released with the new GPLv3 license, we are updating our next version release number. The next planned version release was to be 3.0.26, this will now be renumbered so the GPLv3 version release will be 3.2.0. To be clear, all versions of Samba numbered 3.2 and later will be under the GPLv3, all versions of Samba numbered 3.0.x and before remain under the GPLv2."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samba Adopts GPLv3 For Future Releases More

Samba Adopts GPLv3 For Future Releases

Comments Filter:
  • Indeed. A lot of projects are going to be switching to GPLv3 from GPLv2 in the coming weeks and months, are we going to get an article for each one of these projects that change their status? Why is this news?

    • Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Monday July 09, 2007 @07:25PM (#19807277)
      For the major ones, yes. Especially early adopters. And Samba is definitely a major FOSS project, their switching is a win for the GPL3.

      • More like, who re-packages it. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Monday July 09, 2007 @07:31PM (#19807333)
        Yep, Samba is a major project.

        But more to the point, LOTS of vendors re-package Samba and sell it as NAS's and such.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          We could soon see NAS, etc. vendors forking Samba 3.0.x so they don't have to deal with GPLv3 ... then the whole fun mess of was this patch copied from 3.2+ into the fork or does it just happen to look the same since the fix is only sensibly done in a limited number of ways.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Nimey ( 114278 )
            Some NASes still come with Samba 2.x, like the Snap 210 I got last year.

          • Re:More like, who re-packages it. (Score:5, Informative)

            by Jeremy Allison - Sam ( 8157 ) on Monday July 09, 2007 @07:47PM (#19807517) Homepage
            I doubt that. Why would NAS vendors need to fork ? It's not like dealing with GPLv3 is harder than dealing with GPLv2. I expect our vendors to just roll along with us, as will and vendor that doesn't have "discriminatory" patent agreements.
            Jeremy.

            • I expect our vendors to just roll along with us, as will and vendor that doesn't have "discriminatory" patent agreements.

              I'm not trying to be snippish or anything. But are there any vendors that you know of that do have such?

              Particularly with the new Samba on the horizon.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by J0nne ( 924579 )

                How about LaCie [lacie.com]? They even offer the source codes for download to everyone, you don't even need to buy one of those disks.

                The GPLv3 might force them to make it easier to tinker with the drives, but i'm not sure about that (currently it involves operations that are sure to void your warranty).

          • Re:More like, who re-packages it. (Score:5, Interesting)

            by drix ( 4602 ) on Monday July 09, 2007 @08:31PM (#19807883) Homepage
            G'luck with that, is all I have to say. Having once waded into the Samba codebase trying to ferret out a bug, I can't see them getting very far unless they manage to snipe one of the core developers. Samba is giant and the amount of resources needed to backport every bugfix (to say nothing of feature additions) and be at all subtle about it has got to exceed just accommodating the new license. And don't forget Samba 4 is on the way, so you lose ADS too if you want to fork 3. No, I think they'll either put up or shut up.

          • Re:More like, who re-packages it. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @12:50AM (#19809749) Journal
            And that's fine. They can support the full weight of patches and development for the pre-GPL3 code bases. They won't have the open source community lending them a hand with things like Samba and the Linux kernel. Can you see the vendors building NASs with Samba getting together to pool their resources to keep GPL2 versions up and running? Either these vendors will give up the lock-in and play nice, or their products will increasingly become dated and substandard.

    • Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by goarilla ( 908067 ) on Monday July 09, 2007 @07:33PM (#19807349)
      samba is a biggy and pretty vital to Novel and their deal since most interoperatiblity between windows machines
      and *Nix machines is provided through this service, so iirc Novel will have to fork samba

    • Indeed. A lot of projects are going to be switching to GPLv3 from GPLv2 in the coming weeks and months, are we going to get an article for each one of these projects that change their status? Why is this news?

      Could it be that Samba is a major interoperability tool for use with Windows, and as such it has an implact on interoperability with possibly non-GPLv3 distributions eg: Suse and other distros that have made deals with Microsoft.

      In other words, if you want your Linux to work well with Windows (which in a big way means Samba), go for a GPLv3 version.

      • If the current non-GPLv3 version of Samba actually works, I don't see why one has to have the GPLv3 version to achieve interoperability. If it doesn't, than it's unlikely that the license used is going to improve the technology.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by The Cisco Kid ( 31490 ) *
          Becuase MS will continue to modify their implementation of their undocumented file sharing protocols, and the old version of Samba will certainly no longer operate with newer version of MS platforms. The newer (GPL3) versions of Samba will get the ongoing updates and changes to continue to interoperate.
    • this also is a direct blow to Microsoft since samba is a MS > Linux interoperations tool

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bl8n8r ( 649187 )
      > Why is this news?

      Because each time an OSS project chooses GPL3, a chair somewhere in Redmond flies into a million pieces.

  • So, let me summerize (Score:4, Funny)

    by mergy ( 42601 ) on Monday July 09, 2007 @07:30PM (#19807317) Homepage
    the

    *.2.* indicates GPLv3
    *.0.* indicates GPLv2

    So, to easily remember this kids 2 equals 3 and 0 equals 2.

    All set now?

  • smbfs? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by man_of_mr_e ( 217855 ) on Monday July 09, 2007 @07:33PM (#19807361)
    So doesn't this mean that smbfs is now dead? Or stuck at 3.0.x? Since the Linux kernel will not be going GPLv3, from my understanding of what Linus has said.

    • Re:smbfs? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jeremy Allison - Sam ( 8157 ) on Monday July 09, 2007 @07:37PM (#19807383) Homepage
      smbfs has been dead for a while. The replacement is CIFSFS. Luckily (or unluckily, depending on your point of view :-) this isn't a Samba project, it's developed by Steve French of IBM, and I think it's under GPLv2 or later.
      Jeremy.
      • CIFSFS? Isn't that redundant? lol.

        Still, doesn't this mean that new features of Samba can't be ported to work as a kernel level driver?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rthille ( 8526 )
          No, it means the code has to be rewritten, not copied, since it's just a copyright thing, not a patent thing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by skrolle2 ( 844387 )
      Not necessarily, if smbfs needs code from the Samba project, its authors can of course give it to smbfs under GPLv2, or whatever other license they choose.
    • Some (all?) of the samba libraries are also released under the LGPL, which can be linked against software using whatever license you want. I'm not certain, but I think that this includes all of the libraries used by smbfs.

      The FAQ in the article is actually in error - you do not need to license your code as "GPLv2 or latter" to link against LGPLv3, just to link against GPLv3.

      • Re:Not dead yet. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Jeremy Allison - Sam ( 8157 ) on Monday July 09, 2007 @07:51PM (#19807549) Homepage
        No it isn't in error. "GPLv2-only" licenses are incompatible with both GPLv3 and LGPLv3, as they add additional conditions which are incompatible with GPLv2. It isn't the LGPLv3 code that is the problem, it's the "GPLv2 only". Thus the advice to relicense to "GPLv2 or later". See the FSF comments on this.
        Jeremy.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by samkass ( 174571 )
          It isn't the LGPLv3 code that is the problem, it's the "GPLv2 only". Thus the advice to relicense to "GPLv2 or later".

          It takes two to have a problem. "GPLv2 or later" is essentially handing all your rights over to FSF. I don't sign blank checks, I don't sign contracts before they're written, and I'd be a fool to write "GPLv2 or later" on any piece of code I wrote.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by node 3 ( 115640 )
            Why do you think that would that make you a fool, exactly?
            • If there's one thing the FSF has done successfully, it's teach FLOSS developers to be highly skeptical of any large, monolithic entity with power over your programs and your code. The FSF is, due to it's GNU associations, very much a large, monolithic entity in the *nix world. If I was going to say "I trust you with my code in perpetuity" I'd probably go with any other FLOSS license besides the GPL.

              Note that there's no reason the original copyright holder can't re-release code that's GPLv2-only under GPLv

              • Re:Not dead yet. (Score:4, Informative)

                by node 3 ( 115640 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @02:17PM (#19816137)

                If there's one thing the FSF has done successfully, it's teach FLOSS developers to be highly skeptical of any large, monolithic entity with power over your programs and your code.
                That's not what they've taught at all. They've taught that large monolithic organizations are just fine and dandy, so long as they provide you with the ability to do what you want with the products they sell you.

                The FSF is, due to it's GNU associations [aside: what does this even mean?], very much a large, monolithic entity in the *nix world. If I was going to say "I trust you with my code in perpetuity" I'd probably go with any other FLOSS license besides the GPL.
                Which organization do you think is going to work to protect the freedom of software users more than the FSF?

                Note that there's no reason the original copyright holder can't re-release code that's GPLv2-only under GPLv3 or later revisions. The original owner didn't gain access to it by the GPL. He gained access to it by copyright.
                See my response to the AC below.

                The real question is, what, exactly, do people think is going to happen? MS is going to buy the FSF and create a GPLv4 which is just an MS license? Do they think that somehow this means that the FSF will be able to steal your code away from you? None of these things are remotely likely, or in the case of the second, even reasonably possible.

                The biggest concern is the FSF really screwing up, inadvertently, a new license. *That's* the only reasonable concern. The FSF has shown great care in the past, and present, in drafting their licenses, and it seems highly reasonable to assume they'll do so in the future. Of course, if it were as easy as you (and others) seem to think to relicense a project from GPLv2 to GPLv3 (or any other earlier-later transition), then there really wouldn't be an issue. But it *is* difficult, unless you are the sole programmer for a project, and you don't die or pass on stewardship of the project to someone else without granting them full copyright of your code. And if you do accept patches or other collaboration, then you'll have to be sure to consolidate fully copyrights from everyone who contributes code (which is the exact thing you are arguing *against* people doing).

                On the other hand, just adding "or later" (not adding, actually, just not removing), you avoid all those problems. All those real problems which actually exist. You do leave yourself vulnerable to potential problems, primarily the FSF botching a subsequent license. But if your code is GPLvX or later, if GPLvX+1 is botched, you can still just use GPLvX. Of course, you can't stop others from switching over to a newer license, but your code will remain under the "GPLvX or later" license, if that's what you wish. And even if GPLvX+1 (or later) is botched, it's probably not botched all that much.

                So the risk is small, the potential problems are small and fairly limited, and the potential for avoiding non-small, non-low risk problems is great. How is this foolish again?
    • Linus has been a little muddy on this point of late. He gave some examples (for instance if Sun releases Solaris under GPLv3) that would probably convince him to change the license on the kernel.

      Sun has said they would like to release Solaris under GPLv3 if possible.

      Linus said he is also not near as up in arms over the new version of the GPL as he once was.

  • Oh whew! (Score:3, Funny)

    by mattgreen ( 701203 ) on Monday July 09, 2007 @07:38PM (#19807395)
    What a relief! These past few nights I have been unable to sleep as I pondered which versions of what software should adopt the new GPL (which is really sweet BTW you should check it out, it has awesome graphics). I can rest a little easier now knowing that they are moving to GPLv3.

    After all, its the morally correct thing to do.

  • Excellent work (Score:5, Insightful)

    by raahul_da_man ( 469058 ) on Monday July 09, 2007 @07:40PM (#19807429)
    There was a lot of doomsaying as to how the GPL V 3 would never be adopted, most unexpectedly by Linus, and also by the normal suspects in spreading FUD. It is good to see that
    the FSF and Stallman have finally addressed patent issues and prevented tivoization. As a major project like Samba has adopted this, many other projects will probably also follow suit. It becomes harder and harder to stay GPL v 2 if the entire body of software is V3. Linus may have stated that the kernel won't have V3, but increasingly that will lead to the kernel being unable to incorporate the latest patches from others.

    • GPL3 not practical for Linux kernel (Score:5, Interesting)

      by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Monday July 09, 2007 @08:06PM (#19807679)
      The limitation is not because Linus is some asshole, but a practical realisation that GPL3 cannot be retro-fitted to existing kernel code.

      Only the owner of the code is allowed to assign the license and people made submissions to Linux under the GPL2-flavored license. Linus has no authority to release all the Linux code under a new license since he only owns a small percentage of the code. There have been thousands of people submitting to Linus under the GPL2-flavored license and it is impractical, if not impossible, to track those submittors down and secure a GPL3 agreement from them.

      Sure, Linux could adopt the SMB strategy of committing to make future release of Linux GPL3 (eg, say Linux 3.0). Then all submissions into that new version would have to be GPL3. Practically though, many of the big players in Linux might prefer GPL2 over GPL3 and that could force a fork.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mcrbids ( 148650 )

        The limitation is not because Linus is some asshole, but a practical realisation that GPL3 cannot be retro-fitted to existing kernel code.

        Only the owner of the code is allowed to assign the license and people made submissions to Linux under the GPL2-flavored license. Linus has no authority to release all the Linux code under a new license since he only owns a small percentage of the code. There have been thousands of people submitting to Linus under the GPL2-flavored license and it is impractical, if not im

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Dog-Cow ( 21281 )
          "If Linux was really to be relicensed, then there would be a period of time where the intent to relicense would be broadly published, and contributors who wished to object would have the chance to have their contributed code evaluated for modification/removal, and then the kernel would be relicensed. It might take as long as 6 months to a year, but it would, could, and probably will happen."

          Cool! I'm going to print an ad in a prominant Redmond newspaper, notifying MS that I'm relicensing Windows under the

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dbIII ( 701233 )

      There was a lot of doomsaying as to how the GPL V 3 would never be adopted, most unexpectedly by Linus

      That was about the drafts and some loud idiots insisting that the imperfect drafts had to be accepted without question. A few things have been fixed, it is now a lot more clear and it doesn't have stupid unintended complications like forbidding authentication of embeded devices.

    • Linus may have stated that the kernel won't have V3, but increasingly that will lead to the kernel being unable to incorporate the latest patches from others.

      Never, ever, in a million years would I have expected see it come to pass that Solaris was more GNU-friendly [osnews.com] than Linux. Should it really pan out that Linux is GPLv2-only and Solaris really is released under GPLv3, will we start seeing a migration?

      I haven't looked (and don't know where to look) to see if the kernel itself has any external dependencies - I'm pretty sure it doesn't link to glibc but I don't know about other libraries. Does anyone know either way and care to share with us?

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @10:30AM (#19812955)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • If you're about to say that this only applies to tivoized devices, you should take a look at the market and see that the majority of corporate uptake of OSS has been in internet-connected appliances.
        Internet connected does not mean "tivoized".
        For example, Linksys used the Linux kernel on its routers, got forced to publish the source and now you have 3rd party firmware for those devices. So, they did participate and they did use Linux. This deal would still be valid under GPLv3. The only thing you are not al

  • And now for the important part. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by skrolle2 ( 844387 ) on Monday July 09, 2007 @07:41PM (#19807445)
    When will 3.2 be released, and when will Novell include it in SUSE?
  • Is the "or any later version" variety of licensing legal?

    I thought law was all about exacting language, and that seems pretty vague to me - who knows what future versions will hold?

    I also assume the definition of who can create any such "future version" is well defined as well, right?

    • From the GPLv2:

      Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

      From the GPLv3:

      Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close