On 10/10/07, Tomas Mraz <tmraz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Actually in case of rawhide we probably cannot build the new samba there > before all packages linking to it which have incompatible license are > either changed to not link to samba or to link to the proposed compat > libsmbclient package. Or we had a whitelist mechanism in the buildsystem to enforce metarules concerning what can build against new libsmbclient/samba. But Nicolas has stated my murkier concern. If we just drop re-licensed libsmbclient into place with no enforced technical break like a soname change or a library renaming, are we acting negligently with regard to protecting our own users who consume pieces of rawhide to suppliment F7 or soon to be F8? If the re-licensed code can just drop into place, are we encouraging users to violate the license at runtime by making it too easy to use the re-licensing binary in situations where its inappropriate? -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
