Somebody in the thread at some point said: >> - 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. Is it possible to use some LD_LIBRARY_PATH or somesuch to bind libsmbclient only to the GPL2 samba libs in that case? >> - 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. Nor is it under your control in the least -- it is out of scope for Fedora by definition. It's also *legitimate* if an enduser wants to combine stuff in a nondistributable way (at least it is true for GPL2 era stuff, I don't fully apprehend the GPL3)... and indeed doesn't distribute it. I don't propose it should be done or anyone here has to do or acknowledge or bless it, just that it is a real permutation that can exist under the sun without violation. >> 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. Well at least we seem to agree it doesn't violate anything. Within the boundaries of what Fedora actually controls, it's clean. -Andy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
