On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 01:26 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > Andrew Bartlett wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 07:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > >>> In any case this is completely irrelevant, we are not asking anybody to > >>> go GPLv3, but to come out with a decision on what they want to do. Once > >>> that is clear we will know how to handle the situation. > >> Though I am strongly convinced about OpenSource and am usually > >> supporting it, for my own works, I have decided not to apply GPLv3 (at > >> least for now), because there are details inside I consider > >> counterproductive[1] and ... because I prefer not to expose myself to > >> the risks of this license :) > > > > And we choose not to provide you with our software, except on the terms > > that we find best protect it. We are very serious in this business, and > > have had more to do with the threats, protections and realities around > > GPL'ed software than many other projects. We choose this licence for > > good reason, and after wide consultation. > > Did you mean to imply that the people using, say, the Apache license > aren't serious? No, and with GPLv3 we are very glad to be able to link Samba with Apache Licenced software. It is one of the many reasons we moved to GPLv3. I simply mean to say that we as the Samba Team did not take this decision lightly, nor do we consider it a risky option, but a choice made for the good of our project. 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
