On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:18:14AM -0800, Richard Sharpe wrote: > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Jeremy Allison <jra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 2:34 AM, James Bottomley > > <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> That's one of these pointless licensing complexities that annoy > >> distributions so much ... they're both open source, so there's no real > >> problem except the licence incompatibility. The usual way out of it is > >> just to dual licence the incompatible component. > > > > Just one point here - we're not able to dual license > > Samba to go back to GPLv2 anything. There are too many > > contributors to this who have contributed under v3-or-later > > licensing in order for this to be possible for us. > > > > I'm hoping adding the 'or-later' clause to fio might > > be easier. > > As someone who has worked for companies that distribute Samba for > quite a while I cannot see us distributing fio. Rather, we would use > it as a performance testing tool. > > That being the case, the license differences are not a problem. > > Am I missing something here? No, it's only a problem for distributors, so it's much less of a problem than it might be. But it's still a problem I'd rather not have to think about :-). -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>