samba license change
a.badger at gmail.com
Tue Oct 9 23:22:17 UTC 2007
Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 10:07 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>> 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.
> Isn't this an argument for the Licence tags on RPMs, and for someone to
> run a depsolver over the packages, ensuring the packages do not rely on
> services with incompatible licences?
> Bumping the soname just makes people recompile code, with no further
> indication as to what is incompatible. Unlike and ABI change, the
> problem doesn't go away with a rebuild.
I think the problem people are trying to address is how to allow the
packages which can only link to libsmbclient-GPLv2+ to do so while
providing samba-GPLv3+ for everything else. If we have an SONAME bump,
then we can have a package for the programs which need GPLv2 and a
package for the packages which are free to move on.
Without the SONAME bump we'd have to do one of the following:
* static library or private directory for libsmb-GPLv2+ and have the
affected programs set up to find the library there.
* Rename the libsmbclient-GPLv2+ library so it has a different SONAME by
virtue of its name.
The problem you bring up is also worthwhile but it is a separate issue
(detecting of problems rather than how to address the problems once they
are brought to light.)
More information about the fedora-devel-list