BearItAll <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Quoted for its value:
>>
>> Samba Team Asks Novell to Reconsider
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | The Samba Team disapproves strongly of the actions taken by Novell
>> | on November 2nd.
>> |
>> | One of the fundamental differences between the proprietary software
>> | world and the free software world is that the proprietary software world
>> | divides users by forcing them to agree to coercive licensing agreements
>> | which restrict their rights to share with each other, whereas the free
>> | software world encourages users to unite and share the benefits of the
>> | software.
>> |
>> | The patent agreement struck between Novell and Microsoft is a
>> | divisive agreement. It deals with users and creators of free
>> | software differently depending on their "commercial" versus
>> | "non-commercial" status, and deals with them differently depending
>> | on whether they obtained their free software directly from Novell
>> | or from someone else.
>> |
>> | The goals of the Free Software community and the GNU GPL allow for
>> | no such distinctions.
>> |
>> | Furthermore, the GPL makes it clear that all distributors of GPL'd
>> | software must stand together in the fight against software patents.
>> | Only by standing together do we stand a chance of defending against
>> | the peril represented by software patents. With this agreement Novelli
>> | s attempting to destroy that unified defense, exchanging the long
>> | term interests of the entire Free Software community for a short
>> | term advantage for Novell over their competitors.
>> |
>> | For Novell to make this deal shows a profound disregard for the
>> | relationship that they have with the Free Software community. We
>> | are, in essence, their suppliers, and Novell should know that they
>> | have no right to make self serving deals on behalf of others which
>> | run contrary to the goals and ideals of the Free Software community.
>> |
>> | Using patents as competitive tools in the free software world is
>> | not acceptable. Novell, as a participant in numerous debates,
>> | discussions and conferences on the topic knew this to be the case.
>> | We call upon Novell to work with the Software Freedom Law Center to
>> | undo the patent agreement and acknowledge its obligations as a
>> | beneficiary of the Free Software community.
>> `----
>>
>> http://news.samba.org/announcements/team_to_novell/
>
> Samba could withdraw the license for Novell to use samba. That would bugger
> things up a bit.
>
> I can understand samba being worried, but actually Samba have gone, imho,
> too far past the basic file/printer sharing idea. They are taking some of
> the secure aspects of communications and email handling away from the
> Linux, but also for each service their provide the user has another level
> between them and their goal, taking into account that every service that is
> exposed via Samba is already available on your Linux.
>
> Some will see that as good because it makes their lives easier, I see it as
> bad because we have another level of security outside of Linux that we have
> to take into account in addition to all of the natural security of Linux
> itself.
Correction : another level of forked code with differing aims.
I ran into this when trying to share my HP on my home wireless network -
people kept hollering "use samba". I didnt want to use SAMBA - I have no
windows shares. I finally got CUPS working. Nightmare.
Distro hell will follow.
"SambaLux is an innovative Linux distro centred around SAMBA ..." etc
etc etc
>
> The principal should be very simple,
> a] Set your appropriate security at the Linux system level.
> b] Sit samba on top as a communications method. Never having
> more rights than were set at the system level, but
> can be set for less.
> c] ... set other communications methods such as nfs etc.
>
> We all know that UNIX/Linux to UNIX/Linux we have better means of file and
> resource sharing at our disposal. If the end result of the Novell-MS
> communications is to aim to be more UNIX-like or at the very least a more
> direct service handling, then it has to be a good thing. We already have
> the services and good though Samba has been, it is in the end just an
> interface between two communications systems, so is in fact taking up
> resources when it shouldn't be necessary if those communications systems
> were on common ground.
>
>
>
--
If someone can point me to a good and _FREE_ backup software that keeps
track of which files get stored on which tape, we can change to it.
-- Mike Neuffer, admin of i-Connect Corp.
|
|
