Linux.com

I'm as anti-monopoly and anti-Microsoft-monopoly as you can get, but Jeremy's problem is something that was completely predictable from the start of the samba project. All Microsoft has to do is patent something (or enforce an existing patent) needed by samba and the whole project is fried because the GPL restrictions on the code prevent it from being usable with anything that requires different licensing. Even if the licensing terms were acceptable to all users concerned, the GPL would be incompatible with them. The current issue in court had to do with Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Samba's problem has to do with the anti-competive nature of the GPL. The fact that MS has used it's monoply position to drop client software on every desktop whether people wanted it or not may make it a legal requirment to provide reasonable licensing to the server components, but the GPL isn't exactly a reasonable license.

#