NOTE: Please publicize any license changes to your packages
jspaleta at gmail.com
Tue Jul 24 20:51:53 UTC 2007
On 7/24/07, Tomas Mraz <tmraz at redhat.com> wrote:
> And I don't even see the problem with lgplv3 - we just have to ensure
> that we don't link any gplv2 only program to such library. Such as we
> have to ensure that we don't link any gpl program to openssl library and
> so on.
"We" have to ensure.... let me stress the "We" in that first sentence.
The individual library maintainers are the absolute best people to be
running point for the library packages they are maintaining. They are
best positioned to make sure information gets to the other maintainers
who depend on that package, before a re-licensed version of the
library gets into one of the build trees. It would be best if "we"
could prevent situations where "we" have inadvertent linking
violations. But each individual maintainer needs to try the find the
time to review their packages to see what the hell is going on
upstream for the libraries they are linking against. Pretty please,
with sugar on top.
I'd really like to avoid a situation where we have to start
arbitrarily rolling back commits to clean up linking violations which
could have been avoided through reasonable communication. As more
individual projects who were previous under LGPL2/GPL2 start
relicensing we may need to adjust how we do things until the licensing
situation settles out and upstream projects are back to a consistent
understood licensing state.
-jef"i need a new watch, i smashed mine against something yesterday
and now the glass face as an internal crack. There's no way that thing
is going to survive the winter"spaleta
More information about the fedora-devel-list