Le Jeu 11 octobre 2007 16:07, Till Maas a écrit :
> On Do Oktober 11 2007, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> Le mercredi 10 octobre 2007 à 23:32 +0200, Till Maas a écrit :
>> > On Mi Oktober 10 2007, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> > > ??? Even if you build against gplv2 samba, as soon as the result
>> is
>> > > distributed with gpl3 samba and links against it on user
>> systems,
>> > > you're in the wrong.
>> >
>> > Is this really the case? Afaik the GPL only defines rules for
>> > distributing the software and rights for receiving GPL software.
>>
>> Read my sentence again. The *full* sentence
>
> Hm, maybe I do not understand the sentence correctly. Do you mean,
> that when
> some gplv2 software is built using parts of gplv2 samba and the result
> is in
> package foo.rpm and one distributes this with a gplv3 samba, which is
> in a
> package samba.rpm, then this a gplv2 license violation of the gplv2
> samba used to compile foo.rpm?
IANAL, but IMHO this could be interpreted as a license violation of
the gplv3 samba distributed with GPLv2 foo.rpm that links against it.
(of course one could argue foo is not really derived from gplv3 samba
since it has been built against gplv2 samba, but gplv3 samba+gplv2 foo
is certainly derived from gplv3 samba, and that's what we'd be
distributing)
IMHO the original message I was responding to ("Thanks god we don't
have automated rebuilds") is dead wrong. The version against which
code was build or rebuild does not matter overmuch. The version we
distribute linking binaries with does.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
