On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 11:26 +0100, Andy Green wrote: > - Additionally, completely externally, some other repo might offer a > standalone GPL3 samba libs package that has the same soname that > endusers might choose to use to replace Fedora's GPL2 library. That's > up to them and the user's problem that his combined system may not be > redistributable if he goes down that path. > > If I understood it, this does not violate any terms or intention of the > terms and is nice and clean. Why are we, as a Free Software community, spending time looking for new and interesting ways to violate Samba's licence, in fact or in spirit? Just because people have created a history of non-compliance with the kernel's licence for convenience does not make me any more comfortable with this thread's direction. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part