could the GPLv3 kill samba?

[darkhatter]

I'm not looking for a flame war, but since samba uses workgroups and I think Microsoft has some sort of patient on that, wouldn't samba run into some problems?

if Linux(kernel) has ntfs and fat support aren't those both patiented, would that also pose a problem

[Hendrixski]

That is Microsofts best intention isn't it? that since their stuff is patented you have to pay to play, and samba doesn't pay. Steve Balmer claims Linux infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property, and those are the kinds of things he points to.

What is the role that GPL3 will play in this? Will samba HAVE to upgrade to GPL3 or can they chose to keep working the way they currently are. I mean, it's an important technology to have around. I hope it won't go away.

[darkhatter]

That is Microsofts best intention isn't it? that since their stuff is patented you have to pay to play, and samba doesn't pay. Steve Balmer claims Linux infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property, and those are the kinds of things he points to.

What is the role that GPL3 will play in this? Will samba HAVE to upgrade to GPL3 or can they chose to keep working the way they currently are. I mean, it's an important technology to have around. I hope it won't go away.

thats my question, if this stuff is patented would they have to remove it to go gplv3

what about stuff like mp3 play back, and even double click

[christhemonkey]

You dont have to upgrade your license version, you can say specifically 'i license this software under GPLv2':

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

So in short,
Could the GPLv3 kill samba? possibly.
Will it? No.

[darkhatter]

You dont have to upgrade your license version, you can say specifically 'i license this software under GPLv2':



So in short,
Could the GPLv3 kill samba? possibly.
Will it? No.

can you link and package GPLv2 software with GPLv3?

[christhemonkey]

Im unsure.
It might be mentioned in GPLv3, which i havnt read for quite a while.

But i imagine it should be ok?
IANAL btw so might be wrong!

[Hendrixski]

can you link and package GPLv2 software with GPLv3?

one would hope that the FSF made them compatible

[macogw]

can you link and package GPLv2 software with GPLv3?

Why not? They're still individual programs. From what I've heard, some of the things in use in GNU/Linux distros are BSD licensed, but that doesn't mean that having a GPL program in there too turns the BSD licensed ones into GPL software. For an example, TCP/IP is a BSD thing.

[bonzodog]

Well, you can link gplv2 software with gplv3 software, but they would prefer you didn't. However, the Linux kernel will stay v2, as will a lot of the current software in use in Linux. Getting people to adopt v3 will be difficult methinks.
The FSF will not be able to stop Novell in all practicality, unless they use libraries licensed under v3 which are linked to proprietary software.
Thats what the FSF means by linking - at a library level.

[forrestcupp]

Well, you can link gplv2 software with gplv3 software, but they would prefer you didn't. However, the Linux kernel will stay v2, as will a lot of the current software in use in Linux. Getting people to adopt v3 will be difficult methinks.
The FSF will not be able to stop Novell in all practicality, unless they use libraries licensed under v3 which are linked to proprietary software.
Thats what the FSF means by linking - at a library level.

That's right. The kernel that makes everything possible is going to stay gplv2. So what can they do? It is a project's own personal choice on whether to upgrade or not. I know people will hate me for saying this, but Richard Stallman isn't the controller of the Linux universe.