Le Jeu 11 octobre 2007 18:36, Les Mikesell a écrit : > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> In a distribution context since yum or anaconda will always choose >> to >> install foo with GPLv3 samba you can't handwave "there was a GPLv2 >> samba on the buildsys". That's not what users get through pour >> distribution. And it's not mere aggregation since one links to the >> other. > > But it's also not a derived work of the gplv3 instance, since that > could > be replaced by the gplv2 version and it would still work. With that kind of argument you could publish large harry potter extracts in a children book anthology and never get sued. Because they can be replaced with any other child story, right? The distro is at some level a derived work of gplv3 samba because you're distributing GPLv3 samba, so the specific licensing rules of the samba version you distribute apply to some extent. Anyway, IANAL, so I'll stop, but I doubt the case is as clear-cut as you want it to be, especially in an i18n legal context. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
