samba license change
Simo Sorce
ssorce at redhat.com
Wed Oct 10 04:20:02 UTC 2007
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 09:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>
> >
> > The problem is, there is no long-term will to maintain such a -compat
> > package. How long would such a package last - forever if other packages
> > don't move? Who would maintain it?
I agree with Andrew and you actually give me a chance to explain why.
> I assume whoever is dependent on Samba but can't make the move to a
> compatible license would be interesting in maintaining it. I don't think
> it is feasible for us to have a new release of Fedora where something as
> major as GNOME or KDE does not have any Samba support. Do you?
Well there are 2 possible situations:
A) The projects that depend on samba are willing to address the
licensing problem
B) They are not
If A we have time, we are talking about F9, plenty of time.
If B then they have 2 choices:
B.1) Drop functionality
B.2) Implement/maintain/whatever their own SMB/CIFS support
In both cases I think they should provide the solution. A SONAME bump is
just going to break existing application that do not have any licensing
problem, it is not going to fix the licensing problem for these
projects, a problem they need to solve one way or another anyway.
If they choose B.1 a SONAME bump was useless, broke applications, wasted
time.
If they choose B.2 a SONAME bump was useless, broke applications, wasted
time as they are going to provide their own solution anyway in their
packages (or through a fork, or whatever).
> > The bit that bothers me is that not only was Samba for the longest time
> > mentioned in most GPLv3 news articles, we asked if anybody had a reason
> > not to change our licence, and nobody gave a compelling reason.
>
> Things are not working a vacuum.
Oh this is exactly right, things do not happen in a vacuum, the license
change of Samba was *largely* anticipated and announced some time ago.
Plenty of time to act. And remember we are not forcing anybody on a
solution, these projects are completely free to choose their own.
> You know the major players in Free
> dependent on Samba which includes GNOME and KDE. The license
> incompatibility that would occur as a result of this move was very plain
> to everyone involved.
Yes, it was clear, but let me rant a bit:
People started warning about the problems of GPLv2 only licensing
*years* ago, when the GPLv3 work was not started yet but was expected to
start at some point.
Now projects that choose GPLv2 only, choose *consciously* the route of
incompatibility with an upgrade.
now as these projects made that decision, I think it is only fair they
move quickly to fix the problem, they have been given a lot of time to
think, the 3.0.x version will still be maintained (security fixes and
very serious bugs only) for an year after the GPLv3ed 3.2.0 is out.
> Such a transition can take several months if we
> have to introduce it into the distribution. I don't see any way out of a
> maintaining a GPLv2 version of Samba for a while unless everyone
> involved moves to GPLv3 or compatible licenses for their own software
> quickly if they are dependent on Samba.
See above, there is still some time, I am holding 3.2.0 (we are still
pre1 anyway) releases for now, they will not hit rawhide until the
matter is solved for Fedora.
But this is a general issue, I urge the people that work with GNOME and
KDE to ask these projects to decide what they are willing to do in the
future without further delaying an inevitable decision.
I sent notice to fedora-devel in advance exactly to start kicking the
whole machine, as I said we have time, but not the whole eternity, and I
haven't seen much around the topic since we made our announcement from
the interested parties.
Nor when we asked for comments *before* changing the license, nor
*after* we announced it. I believe it is time to hear something from our
friends :)
Simo.
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list