samba license change

[Jeff Spaleta]

On 10/10/07, Tomas Mraz <tmraz at redhat.com> wrote:
> Actually in case of rawhide we probably cannot build the new samba there
> before all packages linking to it which have incompatible license are
> either changed to not link to samba or to link to the proposed compat
> libsmbclient package.

Or we had a whitelist mechanism in the buildsystem to enforce
metarules concerning what can build against new libsmbclient/samba.

But Nicolas has stated my murkier concern. If we just drop re-licensed
libsmbclient into place with no enforced technical break like a soname
change or a library renaming, are we acting negligently with regard to
protecting our own users who consume pieces of rawhide to suppliment
F7 or soon to be F8? If the re-licensed code can just drop into place,
are we encouraging users to violate the license at runtime by making
it too easy to use the re-licensing binary in situations where its
inappropriate?

-jef