samba license change

[Les Mikesell]

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

>>>> 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, 
> 
> The distribution *as a whole* is a derivative work. You can say parts
> are mere aggregation but that does not work for parts that link together
> and have no alternative within the distribution (or alternatives
> distribution tools will never install). Fedora would not be liable for
> GPLv2 foo or GPLv3 samba separately, but by distributing a "Fedora"
> product which is both together.

In the case of fgmp vs. gmp it was never necessary to distribute the 
fgmp library.  The mere fact that it existed as a possible alternate 
kept the code that might link to it from being considered a derivative 
work of gmp - which is what everyone actually used.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com