[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:30:19 +0100 Rob Beard <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It looks like anything from Samba 3.2.x onwards will be under GPL3. This also means that all packages linking against Samba libraries will need to move to GPL3. GPL3 applications can use GPL2 libraries but GPL2 applications cannot use GPL3 libraries. > With Samba now being a pretty big part of linking Linux machines to > Windows and vice versa, does this mean it's going to leave distros > such as Novell SUSE out in the cold, or would they have to fork the > Samba code from 3.0.x and maintain their own version of Samba? A fork is always possible but the fork would have to be under the GPLv2 (probably without the "or later" phrase) so the changes have to be public and can be reimplemented under GPL3. > Presumably Novell can't use anything licenced under GPL v3 for future > distro releases because of their link with Microsoft? (or am I > completely wrong here?). The Microvell agreement is legal under GPLv2 and a clause in GPLv3 blocks all future agreements of this kind but it is dated so that only agreements made AFTER Microvell are prohibited. It is difficult to make such rulings retrospective - it invites a legal challenge because it is usually seen as unfair. No matter what anyone thinks about MS and Novell behaviour, the decisions of the free software community must be fair and seen to be fair. However, any change to the Microvell agreement, any extension, any backtracking, would be prohibited if it involved GPLv3 software. The deal is frozen. GPL3 doesn't let Microvell off the hook completely, Novell has already filed financial reports that express an expectation that GPL3 might cause trading difficulties in the future. MS, for their part, may reconsider the existing agreement in light of the risk of granting patent immunity to more projects than it previously expected. " We attack the Microsoft-Novell deal from two angles. First, in the sixth paragraph of section 11, the draft says that if you arrange to provide patent protection to some of the people who get the software from you, that protection is automatically extended to everyone who receives the software, no matter how they get it. This means that the patent protection Microsoft has extended to Novell's customers would be extended to everyone who uses any software Novell distributes under GPLv3." " Second, in the seventh paragraph, the draft says that you are prohibited from distributing software under GPLv3 if you make an agreement like the Microsoft-Novell deal in the future. This will prevent other distributors from trying to make other deals like it." http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq On the face of it, any GPL3 software involved in the Microvell fiasco would allow the same software in Fedora or Debian to claim patent protection via Suse. The licence covers the software within the packaging (which is licensed separately). Therefore, by distributing libfoo1_1.2.3 in Suse as a .rpm, Debian is covered when it uses libfoo1_1.2.3 as a .deb (because we both distribute the same source - the binaries are just modifications of the source, covered by the same licence). It is trivial to establish that the .orig.tar.gz used in Suse is precisely the same software as the .orig.tar.gz used in Debian and everywhere else - the md5sum is published on a variety of websites. Every .deb includes md5sums for the contents and md5sums for the source itself is embedded in every upload to the archive. MD5 isn't perfect but it is good enough for this purpose. The more software gets released under the GPL3, the weaker the Microvell agreement becomes - Microvell gets blocked into a cul-de-sac for the sake of their own greed / shareholders. And yes, at least one of my upstream projects is going to GPL3 and I expect others to follow. It's easiest to do with new projects but there is no reason why existing projects cannot migrate. Looking at the compatibility matrix above, any software that uses the phrase "v2 or (at your option) any later version published by the FSF" or equivalent specifically allows developers to copy and paste that code into GPL3 packages as well as link against libraries built from that code. Once the relevant applications are GPL3, my libraries will follow. The only hurdle comes with getting the agreement of all those who would contribute to the project in the future that their future contributions will be under the GPL3 (or later), not GPL2. There are some projects that are GPL2 only but many use the default "GPL2 or later" phrasing. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgp08R3aoYoK6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html