samba license change

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 10:07 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:

> Samba as a project has every right to re-license its codebase as it
> sees fit. But at the same time, don't we as a distributor have some
> responsibility to make sure we introduce that change in such a way to
> minimize potential licensing violations? I think we do.

Isn't this an argument for the Licence tags on RPMs, and for someone to
run a depsolver over the packages, ensuring the packages do not rely on
services with incompatible licences?

Bumping the soname just makes people recompile code, with no further
indication as to what is incompatible.  Unlike and ABI change, the
problem doesn't go away with a rebuild. 

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.                  http://redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20071010/289cfdd0/attachment.sig>