Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
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)
I think there is a very good argument, going back to the FSF opinion on
the gmp vs, fgmp libraries, that as long as a working alternative
library exists, code linking to one of those versions can't be
considered a derivative of it in the copyright sense.
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.
If you have the right to distribute each component separately and the
existence of a usable gplv2 copy prevents things that happen to link to
the gplv3 version from being considered a derivative work, what's the
problem - at least until changes make the libraries incompatible?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
