On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 06:40 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > 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. Almost everything you said up to here is a mixture of FUD, misconceptions and outright lies (you are no doubt a victim of such lies, not saying you lied). > Is that right? No First of all GPLv3 is no more "virulent" than GPLv2, that it is to say it is not at all. A license cannot spread to other code unless the copyright holder wants to apply it to his code. The license, like any other, states some requirements about source code and when and how and to whom it needs to be distributed, and when the code can be linked to other code. Esp. with cifs-util code, that is not a library and therefore arguably not linked together with other code there is really no more than mere aggregation going on. I strongly suggest you talk to a (knowledgeable) lawyer about what are your obligations applied to your specific case if you have this kind of doubts. If you do not know lawyers that well versed in free software licenses, write me in private and I'll give you names. Simo. -- Simo Sorce Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo@xxxxxxxxx> Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
