Andrew Bartlett wrote:
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.
I think the problem people are trying to address is how to allow the
packages which can only link to libsmbclient-GPLv2+ to do so while
providing samba-GPLv3+ for everything else. If we have an SONAME bump,
then we can have a package for the programs which need GPLv2 and a
package for the packages which are free to move on.
Without the SONAME bump we'd have to do one of the following:
* static library or private directory for libsmb-GPLv2+ and have the
affected programs set up to find the library there.
* Rename the libsmbclient-GPLv2+ library so it has a different SONAME by
virtue of its name.
The problem you bring up is also worthwhile but it is a separate issue
(detecting of problems rather than how to address the problems once they
are brought to light.)
-Toshio
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
