Somebody in the thread at some point said: > Well there are 2 possible situations: > A) The projects that depend on samba are willing to address the > licensing problem > B) They are not > > 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 Can this not ultimately be framed and resolved in the same way as gstreamer-plugins-good/bad/ugly? If it is still only a matter of distribution (I didn't really understand the whole of the GPL3 yet), the combination can occur at the end-user. In that scenario until there is a better resolution Fedora ships an increasingly dusty GPL2 Samba and it's up to the user if they replace it with a same soname GPL3 packaged one from elsewhere (it's always up to them anyway, let's face it). -Andy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
