How to work with Samba (licensing).

[Ira Cooper]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Ira Cooper <ira at samba.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 06:05:46PM -0400, Ira Cooper wrote:
> >> > Ironically, I was looking to help the non-lawyers not need lawyers ;).
> >>
> >> Oh - that's *really* hard :-).
> >>
> >
> > If you lay out every option and nook and cranny... Yes, it is bloody
> hard.
> > If you KISS, it may be intelligible for someone.
>
> The FSF tried that. It did not work out well: For example, the GPLv2
> did not cover patents, and the Tivo company used patents to lock away
> their GPL based software from common use. So the details need to be
> explicitly stated to protect vital intellectual property from
> proprietization.
>
> That's why GPLv3 now covers patents, because patents were abused
> against it. It's also why I want to slap in the head people who say
> "ohh, I won't follow a sane license, I'll just invent my own unique
> one". Danial J. Bernstein's old licenses for daemontools and djbdns
> and qmail come to mind: no one could include binaries made from
> modified source, per his policy,so they couldn't fix the funky layout
> or even correct comments, so good software was rejected from major
> distributions. And so, instead of a funky but smaller daemon
> management tool like daemontools from years ago, we now wind up with
> sysemd.
>

Did I say we should change licenses?

Did I say I disagree with this project's choice of GPLv3?

No, I asked for a guide for people to understand this license in layman's
terms so we have less non-compliance.  Which I think is a good goal, by
anyone's definition.

My thoughts,

-Ira