samba license change

[Simo Sorce]

On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 11:00 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Jeu 11 octobre 2007 18:36, Les Mikesell a écrit :
> > Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> 
> >> In a distribution context since yum or anaconda will always choose
> >> to
> >> install foo with GPLv3 samba you can't handwave "there was a GPLv2
> >> samba on the buildsys". That's not what users get through pour
> >> distribution. And it's not mere aggregation since one links to the
> >> other.
> >
> > But it's also not a derived work of the gplv3 instance, since that
> > could
> > be replaced by the gplv2 version and it would still work.
> 
> With that kind of argument you could publish large harry potter
> extracts in a children book anthology and never get sued. Because they
> can be replaced with any other child story, right?

No, you are comparing apples and oranges, a book is not a functional
work, and software is a very special case in copyright, behaves somewhat
differently from other works.

> The distro is at some level a derived work of gplv3 samba because
> you're distributing GPLv3 samba, so the specific licensing rules of
> the samba version you distribute apply to some extent.

Rubbish, if that were true the distribution would have to be GPLv3 in
all of its components. A distribution is a mere aggregation of
copyrighted works.

> Anyway, IANAL, so I'll stop, but I doubt the case is as clear-cut as
> you want it to be, especially in an i18n legal context.

We don't have all the answers, but we can certainly exclude some exotic
ones :)

Simo.