On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 10:07 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > 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. Isn't this an argument for the Licence tags on RPMs, and for someone to run a depsolver over the packages, ensuring the packages do not rely on services with incompatible licences? Bumping the soname just makes people recompile code, with no further indication as to what is incompatible. Unlike and ABI change, the problem doesn't go away with a rebuild. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc. http://redhat.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
