similar to: Unable to create / copy / delete a file on a SMBv1 only device using Samba 4.12.x

Hello. I'm using Archlinux Mate with its testing repositories activated. I am only the owner of an ISP "box" with an embedded HDD working only with SMBv1 protocol. After I updated my archlinux box to Samba 4.12.0, I noticed that my access was rejected. I tweaked my /etc/samba/smb.conf to add this in [global] section. "server min protocol = CORE client min protocol =

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102368 Bug ID: 102368 Summary: Since Archlinux testing migrate to mesa 17.1.7, I got a pink overlay in webcam software. Product: Mesa Version: unspecified Hardware: Other OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium

Samba adopts GPLv3 for future releases. --------------------------------------- After internal consideration in the Samba Team we have decided to adopt the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 licences for all future releases of Samba. The GPLv3 is the updated version of the GPLv2 license under which Samba is currently distributed. It has been updated to improve compatibility with other licenses and to make it

Samba adopts GPLv3 for future releases. --------------------------------------- After internal consideration in the Samba Team we have decided to adopt the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 licences for all future releases of Samba. The GPLv3 is the updated version of the GPLv2 license under which Samba is currently distributed. It has been updated to improve compatibility with other licenses and to make it

Hi, I'm confused about my licensing obligation with respect to the Xapian SWIG bindings. I've got a python wrapper that sits above the standard Xapian Python/SWIG bindings, and I wasn't sure if the *intent* of the Xapian team is that my python wrapper - and any code that also uses my wrapper also falls under GPLv2. It seems unclear if the FSF's position on dynamic linking in

Hello everyone, I'm not sure who to ask about this, but I have a licensing question. I'm writing a utility to allow Git to connect to SMB shares, which uses libsmbclient. I was thinking about using libgit2 in my program: http://libgit2.github.com/ . This library is licensed as GPLv2 only, with a linking exception to link to any program without restriction. My understanding is that, since

Hello Jeremy and samba maintainers, I am using Samba 3.0.37 and I am confused about the license. On one hand both the COPYING file in the 3.0.37 tarball and your website indicates that version 3.0.37 is GPLv2. http://news.samba.org/announcements/samba_gplv3/ On the other hand, in the 3.0.37 tarball, there are many files with GPLv3 headers without any exception. For instance, several file in

On 19 October 2015 at 18:12, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > One worry is that Apache 2 is incompatible with GPLv2 (is it incompatible with other licenses?) This is interesting, I did not know that... http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html "Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License to be compatible

Hi David, Sorry for the delay getting back to you, been a bit buried: On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:12 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> The TL;DR version of this is that I think we should discuss relicensing all of LLVM under the Apache 2.0 license and add a runtime exception clause. See below for a lot more details. > > I agree that this is a problem.

Hi, I have a licensing question: I'm curious if the fact maketree.py is GPLv2 causes any trouble for the rest of rsync (which is GPLv3 or later). -- yours, Julius Davies 250-592-2284 (Home) 250-893-4579 (Mobile) http://juliusdavies.ca/logging.html

Was looking into how to disable SMBv1 and NetBIOS on a Samba AD. I suspect that if one just wants to support Win7 and "greater" this should work. However to prevent some open NetBIOS ports the "nbt" service must be removed from the "server services" entry. Basically these two entries (note nbt missing in the services line): server services = s3fs, rpc, wrepl, ldap,

Hi, We're slowly deprecating SMBv1 support at work, so I'm trying to mount our Samba network shares using SMBv2.0. This should in principle be supported by the server, and seems works well enough for the Windows clients. But it fails for me with some errors which I do not understand. Can you help me figure out what's going on? Here's my system configuration and a quick

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: samba [mailto:samba-bounces at lists.samba.org] Namens > Hadrien Grasland via samba > Verzonden: vrijdag 13 oktober 2017 15:34 > Aan: samba at lists.samba.org > Onderwerp: Re: [Samba] Share mounts in SMBv1 mode, but fails > weirdly in SMBv2 mode > > Hi Louis, > > Thanks for your reply! > > > This might be a

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:38:51 +0200 Anders ?stling via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > I have a customer with a couple of industrial robots running Linux > 2.6.34 and Samba 3.4.7 (smbclient -V). They are able to connect to > SMB shares on Windows servers IF I "allow unsafe connections?, ie > lower the SMB minimum level. The servers are on Windows 2019, and >

It should probably not be necessary in my case to compile a custom version of the Cortado applet-the official binary works fine, and may be advantageous over a locally-compiled version (regarding compatibility with 1.1-era JVMs), as was mentioned in a previous message. My interest was to include the corresponding source code when distributing the official binary (i.e. as would be required for

Rowland penny via samba ha scritto il 24/08/20 alle 17:39: > [...] > As far as I am aware, SMBv1 is still readily available on Win7, but from > Samba 4.11.0, it is now disabled on Samba, so if you must use SMBv1, you > will need to set: > > client min protocol = NT1 > > server min protocol = NT1 > > in smb.conf ok, the samba server I'm using as test has

Actually, I made it work by adding the ?min server protocol = NT1? on the virtual dedicated server. So I guess that this will solve our dilemma (unless I missed something). In any case, one of the robots now have access to the new server. Will try the second one as soon as I get a chance (they are busy bending steel ;:) ) Anders > On 11 Apr 2024, at 14:55, Rowland Penny via samba <samba

On Jun 22, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 22 June 2011 16:50, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: >>> This sounds like a dead end as newer binutils are GPLv3. >> >> Yeah, that's definitely a very real concern and a big motivation to get the MC based asm parser whipped into usable shape. We're much more in control of our own destiny then.

Hi all, Some history. Samba has historically only accepted code with personal, not corporate copyright attached. There were a couple of good reasons for this in the past, one of which was that we preferred GPL enforcement decisions to be made by individuals, not by corporations. Under GPLv2, a license violator loses all rights under the license and these have to be reinstated by the copyright

On Jun 22, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Damjan Marion wrote: > > On Jun 22, 2011, at 5:29 PM, Jim Grosbach wrote: > >> >> On Jun 22, 2011, at 7:22 AM, Renato Golin wrote: >> >>> On 22 June 2011 14:33, Damjan Marion <damjan.marion at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Problem is that in case when old binutils are used (in my case freebsd is using old one due to