On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 10:39 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Simo Sorce wrote: > > > Well there are 2 possible situations: > > A) The projects that depend on samba are willing to address the > > licensing problem > > B) They are not > > C) They are willing to consider a move but they need more time. I'm increasingly sceptical about this possibility. This is not a new issue, or an unexpected turn of events. If we try and sweep it under the carpet with a 'compatibility' fork of Samba, then we burden ourselves with this situation forever. > > If A we have time, we are talking about F9, plenty of time. > > > > If B then they have 2 choices: > > B.1) Drop functionality > > B.2) Implement/maintain/whatever their own SMB/CIFS support > > 3) Introduce a compatibility package and maintain it for a while before > sorting out the licensing details. Samba developers have claimed before > they will still provide security and bug fixes for the older codebase > for a while so this option is feasible. If there any real expectation that issues not resolved now (while there is significant movement in this issue) will magically be resolved later. Is that expectation worth the complete packaging mess that this would create? Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
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
