Re: Commercial file-server software

From: Christopher Browne (cbbrowne_at_acm.org)
Date: 09/16/05 

Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:39:22 GMT

> But in response to other posts, this will be re-distributed out of our
> company and if used, Samba will be included, incorporated and used.
> Whether or not it is modified now is irrelevant, the lifespan of this
> product is intended to be decades. The real fear that the legal
> department here has (and other out of company entities that I can't
> name), is that sometime in the life of the product, updates, upgrades
> or whatever might occur. Basically there is a possibility that
> something might happen that would require a change in source code, in
> this case the GPL code.
>
> So either a restriction is placed or we just don't use open-source at
> all. The decision was made to generally avoid open-source since who
> knows the implications of a restriction of that sort, a decade from now
> when the product needs a slight tune-up. Also, a change might need to
> be made right off the bat, even before distribution. All these
> "maybe's" don't sit well and the more of those there are, the more
> likely the client boots us.

I find it extremely surprising that you imagine that "open-source" is
different from other forms of software in any meaningful fashion here.

If you had been looking at this five years ago, Digital PathWorks
might have appeared 'more viable,' and you would, today, be in the
situation where Digital kind of doesn't exist anymore.

Under the circumstances you are describing, I can't see there being
any satisfactory approach other than for your organization to develop
its very own server software. The guarantees you seem to find lacking
in "open-source" software don't seem to me to be any more attainable
from vendors selling under more traditional "commercial/proprietary"
licenses.

No other answer than internal development keeps the choices as clearly
controlled in your hands.

> The situation is a hard one since what will be done to Samba, or
> anything of the sort, is unknown at this point. Which is why I was
> looking for alternatives to avoid this whole fiasco.

Then you're toast. There are no alternatives to offer, and a "more
proprietary" world wouldn't help. Supposing PathWorks had remained
commercially viable, the multiplicity of buyouts would probably still
leave it in a questionable state as a choice. 

-- 
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.liamg" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/
If we were meant to fly, we wouldn't keep losing our luggage.