samba license change

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at
Wed Oct 10 07:03:39 UTC 2007

On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 01:26 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 07:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > 
> >>> In any case this is completely irrelevant, we are not asking anybody to
> >>> go GPLv3, but to come out with a decision on what they want to do. Once
> >>> that is clear we will know how to handle the situation.
> >> Though I am strongly convinced about OpenSource and am usually
> >> supporting it, for my own works, I have decided not to apply GPLv3 (at
> >> least for now), because there are details inside I consider
> >> counterproductive[1] and ... because I prefer not to expose myself to
> >> the risks of this license :)
> > 
> > And we choose not to provide you with our software, except on the terms
> > that we find best protect it.  We are very serious in this business, and
> > have had more to do with the threats, protections and realities around
> > GPL'ed software than many other projects.   We choose this licence for
> > good reason, and after wide consultation. 
> Did you mean to imply that the people using, say, the Apache license 
> aren't serious?

No, and with GPLv3 we are very glad to be able to link Samba with Apache
Licenced software.  It is one of the many reasons we moved to GPLv3.  

I simply mean to say that we as the Samba Team did not take this
decision lightly, nor do we consider it a risky option, but a choice
made for the good of our project.  

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