On 2007-10-12, 18:41 GMT, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > This problem wouldn't have arised if samba just stayed with > GPLv2. I cannot imagine how you can call this a QT bug. I am sorry, but upstream has every right to change their license to whatever they wish. If somebody wants to use their functionality (you know, KDE is using product of Samba folks work), then he/she/it must accommodate his code. b) When choosing whether we want to fork Samba or whether KDE will suck it up, we probably decide what is more important to us -- fully functional Samba fully supported by upstream or KDE supporting smb:// (the situation would be the same if it was Gnome what is affected -- don't drag me into that religious war)? I am afraid the answer is obvious. Matěj -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
