On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 08:39 +0200, Lubomir Kundrak wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 11:56 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > Simo Sorce wrote: > > > > > Is this because of the QT license? > > > If so it seem that QT has a lot of exceptions: > > > http://trolltech.com/products/qt/gplexception > > > I wonder why GPLv3 is not on the list yet. > > > > > > Does anyone have more details? > > > > Last I heard TrollTech was still evaluating this option. > > > > http://chani.wordpress.com/2007/07/18/uhoh/#comment-1932 > > > > Essentially unless the entire dependency chain for Samba is GPLv3 > > compatible, a new samba version under GPLv3 or later would be impossible > > to pull as incompatible licensing is a liability for the distribution > > and not necessarily for the individual components. > > This also applies to the patches from the samba upstream. Simo: do you > have an idea wheter it would be possible to convince the samba upstream > to release at least security fixes for samba under GPLv2? Security Fixes for 3.0.x Series are guaranteed for 1 year after 3.2.0 will be released and of course they will be GPLv2. We are responsible people guys, no worries. Simo. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
