On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 08:45:35 +0200 (CEST) brennersimon@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > Can you clarify why you'd like to see it as GPLv2? > > At the moment, I'm just trying to learn and understand more about the GPLv3. So for several Linux programs I've been seeing what licence they've got. I've heard that GPLv3 is quite virulent. That could prevent a manufacturer (say of routers, receivers or similar things) from using cifs-utils if he didn't want to be all of his code opened. Is that right? (re-cc'ing linux-cifs and Jeremy who is better versed in this sort of thing than I am) That's nonsense. It's certainly fine to ship GPLv3 software alongside closed source code. You'll need to provide source for the GPL'ed parts of course, but providing a set of self-contained GPLv3 programs shouldn't force a vendor to open anything else. The problems that you describe typically come in with linking GPL libraries against closed source code, which is a bit more murky. That shouldn't be a problem with cifs-utils as it doesn't ship any libraries. That said, I'm not a lawyer and you may want to consult yours before doing anything. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
