Somebody in the thread at some point said: > On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 11:26 +0100, Andy Green wrote: > >> - Additionally, completely externally, some other repo might offer a >> standalone GPL3 samba libs package that has the same soname that >> endusers might choose to use to replace Fedora's GPL2 library. That's >> up to them and the user's problem that his combined system may not be >> redistributable if he goes down that path. >> >> If I understood it, this does not violate any terms or intention of the >> terms and is nice and clean. > > Why are we, as a Free Software community, spending time looking for new > and interesting ways to violate Samba's licence, in fact or in spirit? Yow for the second time of being jumped on can I ask what bit of which license is violated by Fedora just shipping the GPL2 version as it always has -- end of Fedora's story? To be clear I don't have any boxes any more that use CIFS/Samba, I won't care if Samba is completely pulled, although I see other people do care. -Andy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
