On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 9:26 AM, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 08:48 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 07:49:41AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: >> > >> > For fio, it likely doesn't matter. Most people download the repository >> > and compile it themselves when building the tool. In that case, there's >> > no licence violation anyway (all GPL issues, including technical licence >> > incompatibility, manifest on distribution not on use). It is a problem >> > for the distributors, but they're well used to these type of self >> > inflicted wounds. >> >> That's true, but it is setting a bear-trap for distributors. > > It's hardly a bear trap ... this type of annoyance is what they're used > to. Some even just ignore it on the grounds of no harm no foul. The > first thing they'll ask when they notice is for the protagonists to dual > licence. > >> Might be better to keep the code repositories separate so at >> lease people have a *chance* of noticing there's a problem >> here. > > Actually, it might be better to *resolve* the problem before people > notice ... if the combination is considered useful, of course. Actually, I retract my earlier comment. The combination could be very useful to some companies that ship Samba. I can see it being used by field support to test whether there are performance problems either from Windows (under cygwin) or from Linux. That being the case, it would be useful to resolve the license issue before it becomes an issue. -- Regards, Richard Sharpe (何以解憂？唯有杜康。--曹操) -- 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