On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:56:00AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Is this a problem practically, or is it a matter of the Samba Team's > licensing policy? > > As this is a stand-alone shell script, I wouldn't expect there to be any > license compatibility issues; but if it's a requirement that even shell > scripts be GPLv3 to ship with Samba, I'll concede "GPLv2 or greater".
Well, it's not a strict requirement. But we would like it to be as consistent as possible. What do others think? Can we replace smbmount with such a wrapper for 3.2? Jeremy? Jerry? Volker
pgpzP0hdLzCs3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
