Git Branch to clean up zlib licensing issues.
ira at samba.org
Wed Jul 16 07:49:48 MDT 2014
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke at sernet.de>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 08:50:39AM -0400, Ira Cooper wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Volker Lendecke <
> Volker.Lendecke at sernet.de>
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 08:39:39AM -0400, Ira Cooper wrote:
> > > > For us in this case: It is noise.
> > > >
> > > > In general, shipping derived files, is an easy way to end up in GPL
> > > > violation. If you have derived files you can't regenerate from their
> > > > sources, that is a violation, though
> > > >
> > > > As the original authors, and distributors, they are NOT in
> violation. We
> > > > could be.
> > >
> > > Ok. So we did not sufficiently make clear that lib/zlib is
> > > not covered by the GPL as the rest of Samba is?
> > >
> > Could well be? It is more that people see a package as under one
> > I'm personally not worried by it. But I don't want anyone to take what I
> > say as legal advice, or Red Hat's legal advice to be clear.
> > I'm merely saying I'd like these 4 no op files removed from our tree.
> Ok. I don't understand yet the reasoning how we or our users
> could end up violating the GPL by us shipping those files,
> but there must be a deeper reason that is not obvious to
> people without a PhD in legal matters.
> As it does not hurt at all:
> Reviewed-by: Volker Lendecke <vl at samba.org>
Trust me, I don't have a Ph.D in legal either... that's why I had to throw
that IANAL in there.
But it will make Red Hat happier. I'll be requesting a backport to 4.1.
More information about the samba-technical