On 7/24/07, Tomas Mraz <tmraz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And I don't even see the problem with lgplv3 - we just have to ensure that we don't link any gplv2 only program to such library. Such as we have to ensure that we don't link any gpl program to openssl library and so on.
"We" have to ensure.... let me stress the "We" in that first sentence. The individual library maintainers are the absolute best people to be running point for the library packages they are maintaining. They are best positioned to make sure information gets to the other maintainers who depend on that package, before a re-licensed version of the library gets into one of the build trees. It would be best if "we" could prevent situations where "we" have inadvertent linking violations. But each individual maintainer needs to try the find the time to review their packages to see what the hell is going on upstream for the libraries they are linking against. Pretty please, with sugar on top. I'd really like to avoid a situation where we have to start arbitrarily rolling back commits to clean up linking violations which could have been avoided through reasonable communication. As more individual projects who were previous under LGPL2/GPL2 start relicensing we may need to adjust how we do things until the licensing situation settles out and upstream projects are back to a consistent understood licensing state. -jef"i need a new watch, i smashed mine against something yesterday and now the glass face as an internal crack. There's no way that thing is going to survive the winter"spaleta -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
