On 10/9/07, Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The soname should change for any incompatible change, and while it isn't > a technical change, the license change is incompatible. I'd have to agree. A licensing change on a library, that we know causing an incompatibility with other packages that we include, is a big enough deal that we really need a demarcation to make it easier to avoid licensing violations. If the soname doesn't change in the package that we ship, then I think we as a project are not acting in good faith to help prevent licensing violations by the people using our packages. I think this sets a bad precedent for licensing changes in general. In my mind, it comes down to this question. As a project as a whole, and as individual contributors to this project, do we want to make inadvertent licensing violations less likely or more likely? Samba as a project has every right to re-license its codebase as it sees fit. But at the same time, don't we as a distributor have some responsibility to make sure we introduce that change in such a way to minimize potential licensing violations? I think we do. -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
