samba - Mar 2016 - The sad state of samba 4 adaption for home/small business routers.

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 06:15:30PM +0100, Reindl Harald
wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 12.03.2016 um 18:08 schrieb Sketch:
> >On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> >
> >>GPLv3 should guarentee that you can replace the Samba
> >>on *any* device. That's the whole point of GPLv3 - no
> >>DRM.
> >>
> >>If you find a Samba device using any Samba 3.2 or
> >>newer that doesn't allow you to replace it, please
> >>let us know so we can start the compliance process.
> >
> >I wonder how that will play out with the new US FCC rules causing some
> >manufacturers to disallow installing 3rd party firmware:
> >
>
>http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/tp-link-blocks-open-source-router-firmware-to-comply-with-new-fcc-rule/
> >Maybe they will just not include samba, or other GPLv3 software?
> 
> independent of the FCC - the logical result of "start the compliance
> process" against a hardware manufacturer which sells a router and add
a
> goodie like samba is keep out the goodies in the next version
That's their choice. They need to comply with all
licenses of software included in their product.

This kind of attitude "well if you *insist* people
follow your license then..." is amazing to me.

What do you think would happen if such products
included Microsoft or Oracle software ? Do you
think they'd overlook license violations to
"keep the goodies in the next version" ?

Am 12.03.2016 um 18:25 schrieb Jeremy Allison:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 06:15:30PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 12.03.2016 um 18:08 schrieb Sketch:
>>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>>>
>>>> GPLv3 should guarentee that you can replace the Samba
>>>> on *any* device. That's the whole point of GPLv3 - no
>>>> DRM.
>>>>
>>>> If you find a Samba device using any Samba 3.2 or
>>>> newer that doesn't allow you to replace it, please
>>>> let us know so we can start the compliance process.
>>>
>>> I wonder how that will play out with the new US FCC rules causing
some
>>> manufacturers to disallow installing 3rd party firmware:
>>>
>>>
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/tp-link-blocks-open-source-router-firmware-to-comply-with-new-fcc-rule/
>>> Maybe they will just not include samba, or other GPLv3 software?
>>
>> independent of the FCC - the logical result of "start the
compliance
>> process" against a hardware manufacturer which sells a router and
add a
>> goodie like samba is keep out the goodies in the next version
>
> That's their choice. They need to comply with all
> licenses of software included in their product.
>
> This kind of attitude "well if you *insist* people
> follow your license then..." is amazing to me.
i personally don't care what any soho-equipment manufacturer does or 
not, so it's not abut "attitude" - it's simple logic - and
maybe the
switch to GPLv3 is the reason for the whole subject "The sad state of 
samba 4 adaption"

again: i don't care about such hardware at all
> What do you think would happen if such products
> included Microsoft or Oracle software ? Do you
> think they'd overlook license violations to
> "keep the goodies in the next version" ?
no, but how does it matter what others do?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba/attachments/20160312/560e6864/signature.sig>

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 06:31:13PM +0100, Reindl Harald
wrote:
> 
> i personally don't care what any soho-equipment manufacturer does or
not, so
> it's not abut "attitude" - it's simple logic - and maybe
the switch to GPLv3
> is the reason for the whole subject "The sad state of samba 4
adaption"
Utter bollocks, and I have the OEMs to prove it.
"simple logic" my foot. Go peddle your lies
elsewhere please.

The *only* vendor that dropped Samba over GPLv3
was Apple, who have religious objections to *any*
GPL software, and are busily re-writing anything
containing it. As is their right of course.

I'm not letting these slimy insinuations go
unchallenged.

On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Reindl Harald wrote:
> i personally don't care what any soho-equipment manufacturer does or
not, so
> it's not abut "attitude" - it's simple logic - and maybe
the switch to GPLv3
> is the reason for the whole subject "The sad state of samba 4
adaption"
If that's the case, it would need to be "The sad state of samba 3.2+ 
adoption", since that's when the license was changed...4 years before 
Samba 4 was released.