Jeremy Allison Resigns From Novell In Protest

walterbyrd writes to alert us to word from groklaw.net that Jeremy Allison has turned in his resignation at Novell. "The legendary Jeremy Allison (of Samba fame) has resigned from Novell in protest over the Microsoft-Novell patent agreement, which he calls 'a mistake' that will be 'damaging to Novell's success in the future.' His main issue with the deal, though, is 'that even if it does not violate the letter of the license, it violates the intent of the GPL license the Samba code is released under, which is to treat all recipients of the code equally.' He leaves the company at the end of this month. He explained why in a message sent to several Novell email lists, and the message included his letter to management."

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

samba is moving to GPL 3 as soon as they can, so Novell will need to change the deal or fork. [boycottnovell.com]

You clearly know nothing about contract law

[Anonymous Coward]

Intent is a vitally important part of contracts. Essentially, whenever there's any dispute over a contract, unless a term is specifically and excruciatingly spelled out, the intent of the parties making the contract is what the judge will use to make a decision.

Re:Of course they can

[rhombic]

Except that if the team wants to continue to use the GPL, the FSF doesn't allow modification of the wording of the GPL license, which is what they'd have to do. Inserting a clause like, "All of the above doesn't apply to MS or Novell, they are teh sux and they can't use it" would put the team in violation of the FSF's copyright on the license itself.

Oh yeah, and MS/Novell could just fork off of a version that's already out there. The Samba team controls the copyright, but they've already released versions under the GPL. They can't pull that back in, it's already out and specifically says MS/Novell along w/ everyone else can use and abuse it, as long as they comply w/ the license. One of the "problems" w/ the GPL, that's "fixed" in v3.

Re:Of course they can

[bonefry]

No, you don't get it ... its not about the GPL license ... its about the right to do whatever you want with your copyrights. A copyright holder can prevent an individual or a company from having access to the GPL license. If Novell doesn't have the right to use the GPL license of Samba, Novell cannot redistribute it.

Re:Excellent!

[PinkPanther]

you must provide that source code to the public

Er....um...no.

You must provide access to the source code to the person to whom you delivered your derived work. Nothing in the GPL says that you need to provide access to the public.

You are correct that the genius is that distributing something that was under the GPL must be distributed under the GPL itself. Recursive genius, though some fudslingers call it viral genius.

Others can do a better job.

[GodInHell]

I'm not involved in coding for the project or in GPL litigation.. however others who are have posted below. Check it out.

Here's one argument on how Novell is breaching the GPL: sample [slashdot.org]

I'd do more linking.. but it's lunch time.. [runs off to meet fiance]

-GiH

Re:Of course they can

[T-Ranger]

Well, he diddn't change the text of the license. He added a clarifying statement to before the text © FSF. And he didn't change the license, either, as the license explicityly allows for such clarifying statements.

9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

If you are going to be commenting on licenses, it may be a good idea that you actually read them.

Re:Of course they can

[Linegod]

>>Except that if the team wants to continue to use the GPL, the FSF doesn't allow modification of the wording of the GPL
>>license...

> How did Linus get away with modifying the GPL? The GPL states that:

Because that is not the license. It is a paragraph that tells you which license you can use. It is not a part of the GPL. Many people use the same paragraph, but it is not a part of the license.

Re:Excellent!

[larry bagina]

Now witness the genius of the GPL. If you distribute software you have derived from GPL'ed code, you must provide that source code to the public under the terms of the GPL.

If MS/Novell create a better samba derived from the samba team's GPL code, they *must* provide access to the source code. Any improvements MS/Novell make to samba are guaranteed to become available to us, and they can never take it away.

What you said is true... except that the GPL v 2 (which the hypothetical MicroSuse SAMBA fork would be licensed under) is incompatable with GPL 3 (which SAMBA will be licensed under). MicroSamba's improvements can't be merged back into SAMBA.