[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: kio licenses
From:       Nicolas Brodu <nicolas.brodu () free ! fr>
Date:       2000-03-29 14:03:27
[Download RAW message or body]

Martin Konold wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Harri Porten wrote:
> 
> > > > > Also, how should we license the io slaves?  They are libraries now,
> > > > > right?  So LGPL?
> > > >
> > > > kio_smb can link with Samba-tng, which is GPL. So at least this one should
> > > > remain GPL.
> > >
> > > I do not see your reasoning because LGPL is of course compatible with GPL.
> >
> > Sure ? If I understood Nicolas' statement correctly kio_smb can NOT be
> > LGPL'ed without an explicit permissions from Samba-tng's author(s).
> 
> Well, I am reading about linking not about derived code.
> Nicolas: Please explain the situation.

From top to bottom layer:
- kio_smb: we are the authors, so we can choose as we wish. It uses libsmb++ as
the SMB interface.
- libsmb++: I wrote 95% of it. I can still contact the other authors if
necessary. It's GPL. It can use either Samba-tng or its native code, and Samba
will be the recommended way in the future.
- Native code: the very first version was LGPL, but it's been GPL ever since.
- Samba-tng: is Samba 3.0 CVS and totally GPL. They have decided to move their
core SMB stuff into libraries for their own use. After asking the Samba team, it
appears it's OK for libsmb++ to link to their private libs.

As Harri says, linking a GPL program (konqueror) to a LPGL lib is OK, but in
this way only. If we were to put kio_smb in LGPL, then you could use it for
commercial purpose, which indirectly violates the GPL for the samba code.

Cheers,
Nicolas
-- 
A shortcut is the longest distance between two points. (unknown author)

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]