On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 11:26 +0100, Andy Green wrote: > Somebody in the thread at some point said: > > Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot <at> laposte.net> writes: > >> Le jeudi 11 octobre 2007 à 19:12 +0000, Kevin Kofler a écrit : > >>> Yet third-party repositories are happily distributing proprietary > > kmod-nvidia > >>> modules linked against the GPLv2 kernel, which isn't any more legal than > >>> distributing a GPLv2 kio_smb linked against a GPLv3 Samba would be. > >> Last I checked they're not distributing both kmod-nvidia and kernels in > >> the same repo > > > > They wouldn't be shipping Samba in the third-party repo either. > > So I didn't get the objection to the original proposal. > > - Fedora just sticks with the perfectly valid last GPL2 version for > now, links KDE3 stuff against it as usual and has nothing to do with the > GPL3 version until there is a better situation > > - That is the end of the story for the typical case. When KDE4 comes > or there is some other better resolution that allows it, Fedora just > starts using the GPL3 samba libs and goes on in a good clean way. If KDE4 will not be ready for F-9 timeframe I will do my best to have samba 3.2.x in Fedora anyway. Even if that means stopping linking libsmbclient into KDE. > - 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. This is not ideal nor desirable. > If I understood it, this does not violate any terms or intention of the > terms and is nice and clean. It's not nice, nor 'clean'. KDE (I mean really Trolltech here as KDE people can't do much) at least starting discussing the problem would be nice an clean. Simo. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
