On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 20:14 +0200, dragoran wrote: > On 10/9/07, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Jeff Spaleta (jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx) said: > > > 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. > > > > However, changing the license differently from upstream doesn't really > > help anybody. > > s/license/soname/ correct? ;) > > yes I agree here we should convince upstream to do so.. This means we break binary compatibility with all packages that uses libsmbclient happily and have no license problems. A simple upgrade from 3.0.x to 3.2.x would be difficult without recompiling packages that depends on libsmbclient and ultimately I know this will end up with people requesting a compat- package. A compat- package in turn would be bad because it will: a) not motivate people to switch to the new one b) not benefit from the bug-fixes we will have in the new one c) Yet another package to maintain Honestly, I would rather see packages that depend on libsmbclient to do the hard work if they don't like or can't get compatible with the new license. Changing the soname for non-technical reasons seem just a way to conceal the problem. Simo. Simo. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
