[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:36:28 +0100 Rob Beard <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > > > > Reimplemented meaning not using same code? Using better code. :-) In the case of Samba, what matters if *how* the software negotiates for services from a Windows box. As long as the Windows machine gets the right bytes, it doesn't matter how the source code is structured - what matters is that the code produces the appropriate pattern and contents. I can't see a fork of Samba being worthwhile for Novell - nobody else would use it. It's probably easier to implement the features properly than to wait for Novell to use their connections in MS to do it the Windows-way. > Like a clean room reverse > engineer so to speak, or would they just have to implement the feature > (assuming it isn't covered by any M$ patents)? Software is not patentable. The patent provisions in GPL3 are mainly there to stop more patent FUD. "Software patents are meaningless and in order that free software community members need not be bothered by such trash, GPL3 requires you to give us explicit immunity from any future FUD." It's part of the battle of discrediting software patents, countering the FUD with legal immunity as an antidote to the propaganda emanating from certain companies who have more money than lawyers. Just because GPL3 includes clauses on software patents does not mean that the free software community has accepted the principle that software patents are legitimate. It is simply saying that companies who choose to distribute GPL3 code cannot use patents as a stick to threaten the developers of other GPL3 code. Free software developers cannot afford to defend against spurious patent lawsuits so this is a way for all developers to band together and fight patents en masse. Individually, developers are vulnerable, simply because individuals cannot afford to go to court over patents. GPL3 is like a free software trade union - just like a union, the more software gets released under "GPL3 or later", the stronger the union and the stronger the protection. GPL2 is powerful individually - GPL3 is powerful collectively. GPL3 says that free software is now sufficiently robust, popular, widespread and effective that free software licences can afford to dictate how other parts of the software industry must behave. Free software is here to stay and can no longer be ignored by any sector of the industry - even MS admit that. "First they ignore you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpU17kbuZD0t.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