samba license change

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at
Wed Oct 10 06:05:06 UTC 2007

On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 10:39 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Simo Sorce wrote:
> > Well there are 2 possible situations:
> > A) The projects that depend on samba are willing to address the
> > licensing problem
> > B) They are not
> C) They are willing to consider a move but they need more time.

I'm increasingly sceptical about this possibility.  This is not a new
issue, or an unexpected turn of events.  If we try and sweep it under
the carpet with a 'compatibility' fork of Samba, then we burden
ourselves with this situation forever. 

> > If A we have time, we are talking about F9, plenty of time.
> > 
> > If B then they have 2 choices:
> > B.1) Drop functionality
> > B.2) Implement/maintain/whatever their own SMB/CIFS support
> 3) Introduce a compatibility package and maintain it for a while before 
> sorting out the licensing details. Samba developers have claimed before 
> they will still provide security and bug fixes for the older codebase 
> for a while so this option is feasible.

If there any real expectation that issues not resolved now (while there
is significant movement in this issue) will magically be resolved later.
Is that expectation worth the complete packaging mess that this would

Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett
Authentication Developer, Samba Team 
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list