Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 9, 2019 7:58 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
In reply to: Richard Stallman and the GNU project by gfernandes
Parent article: Richard Stallman and the GNU project

> Today Microsoft contributes to GPL licensed projects.
As far as I'm aware, Microsoft made no contributions to GPLv3-licensed projects.

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 9, 2019 17:23 UTC (Wed) by jra (subscriber, #55261) [Link] (10 responses)

That is incorrect. Microsoft contribute to Samba and we are GPLv3.

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 9, 2019 19:12 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (9 responses)

The patches themselves in question are licensed as "GPLv2 or later", as far as I can find.

E.g.: https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2011-Octo...

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 9, 2019 19:56 UTC (Wed) by BlueLightning (subscriber, #38978) [Link] (8 responses)

A distinction, sure, but you said "... no contributions to GPLv3-licensed projects" which jra has just refuted.

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 9, 2019 19:59 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (7 responses)

Yes, I should have said "GPLv3-licensed contributions". As far as I'm aware, GPLv3 contributions are almost absolutely forbidden inside the MS.

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 10, 2019 11:46 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (6 responses)

Did MS start contributing before GPLv3?

If so, the obvious explanation is that the lawyers approved "V2 or later" and no-one wants the hassle of changing it. Inertia is a *powerful* force - especially in big corporations ...

Cheers,
Wol

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 10, 2019 18:14 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (4 responses)

Not to Samba.

> If so, the obvious explanation is that the lawyers approved "V2 or later" and no-one wants the hassle of changing it.
No. GPLv3 is explicitly prohibited in MS (and many other companies) because of patent clauses.

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 10, 2019 23:34 UTC (Thu) by mrshiny (guest, #4266) [Link] (3 responses)

If they're allowed to license the code as "V2 or later" then by definition they're allowed to license it as V3.

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 10, 2019 23:42 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

No. By contributing code under GPLv3 you take the full obligations of GPLv3, including all the patent clauses.

By contributing the code under "GPLv2 or later" you only take the obligations imposed by GPLv2. However, GPLv3 projects can still use this code because it's explicitly allowed by GPLv3.

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 11, 2019 18:50 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

> If they're allowed to license the code as "V2 or later" then by definition they're allowed to license it as V3.

Who is "they"?

If "they" is Microsoft, then they own the copyright so by definition they can licence it as anything.

If "they" is Samba, then the GPL does NOT give them the right to licence the code, so they CAN'T licence it as ANYTHING!

What Samba CAN do, because MS licensed it as V2+, is to *distribute* it under v3.

This is what really grates with me all the time - people who don't understand the difference between the OWNER LICENCING the code, and the USER DISTRIBUTING the code.

Cheers,
Wol

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 11, 2019 19:20 UTC (Fri) by mrshiny (guest, #4266) [Link]

I understand the difference. Microsoft contributes the code and retains copyright on the code, but they allow it to be used under the terms of a license, which grants extra rights over what copyright grants. But if they grant "v2 or later" then by definition they're granting v3 as well, which Samba can then use, and offer their users whatever GPLv3 offers.

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 11, 2019 18:41 UTC (Fri) by jra (subscriber, #55261) [Link]

No, we have been GPLv3 for a long time (since the license existed essentially). They contributed in full knowledge of this.