samba license change

[Les Mikesell]

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Jeu 11 octobre 2007 16:55, Les Mikesell a écrit :
> 
>> If you have the right to distribute each component separately and the
>> existence of a usable gplv2 copy prevents things that happen to link
>> to the gplv3 version from being considered a derivative work, what's
> the
>> problem
> 
> Because you can't limit yourself to analysing components separately.
> The distribution itself is an aggregate work that is subject to
> copyright laws as a whole.

Yes, but one part only affects another if it can be considered a 
derivative work, and as the gmp vs. fgmp situation demonstrated, if 
there is a choice of libraries the parts linking to it can't be 
considered a derived work of the one that happens to be used in any 
particular instance.

> In a distribution context since yum or anaconda will always choose to
> install foo with GPLv3 samba you can't handwave "there was a GPLv2
> samba on the buildsys". That's not what users get through pour
> distribution. And it's not mere aggregation since one links to the
> other.

But it's also not a derived work of the gplv3 instance, since that could 
be replaced by the gplv2 version and it would still work.  There wasn't 
a court case with gmp vs. fgmp, but that was the FSF opinion. Personally 
I think it is a stretch to say that any code component can ever control 
the copyright status of any other part that you obtain separately, 
meeting its own terms, but even the FSF admits that it can't in the case 
where some other component works as a replacement.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com