[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: samba license change

On 10/9/07, Chris Adams <cmadams hiwaay net> wrote:
> The soname should change for any incompatible change, and while it isn't
> a technical change, the license change is incompatible.

I'd have to agree.  A licensing change on a library, that we know
causing an incompatibility with other packages that we include, is a
big enough deal that we really need a demarcation to make it easier to
avoid licensing violations.  If the soname doesn't change in the
package that we ship, then I think we as a project are not acting in
good faith to help prevent licensing violations by the people using
our packages.  I think this sets a bad precedent for licensing changes
in general.

In my mind, it comes down to this question. As a project as a whole,
and as individual contributors to this project, do we want to make
inadvertent licensing violations less likely or more likely?

Samba as a project has every right to re-license its codebase as it
sees fit. But at the same time, don't we as a distributor have some
responsibility to make sure we introduce that change in such a way to
minimize potential licensing violations? I think we do.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]