Chris Adams wrote:
I'm really curious about this (not just trying to still the flames): if
a GPLv2-only program is linked against a GPLv2 (or 2+) library and the
library switches to GPLv3 (or 3+), who is violating the license? Use
(e.g. an end-user actually loading the KDE binary that dynamically links
against libsmbclient.so.0) is not covered by the GPLv2, so the end-user
is not violating it (because they aren't distributing). A distributor
could be building against a GPLv2 version of the library but only
distributing the GPLv3 version; is that a violation (why)?
If you build against a GPLv2(+) lib and distribute only a GPLv3(+) lib, then
you (the distributer) are violating the GPL, it doesn't matter against what you
build (as long as it works), for the license what you distribute is what
counts, as the license is about *distributing*. And the GPLv2 says in section
3, you may only distribute a work under the GPLv2 if you:
"a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,"
And the source code is:
"For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all
modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the
scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."
Where "modules" means all parts needed to make it run, so including libraries,
and notice "which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2
above", which say that the covered work must be distributed under the same
License (GPLv2).
So you must distribute it together with a GPLv2 licensed samba, so no loop
holes here (luckily!).
Regards,
Hans
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
