On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 11:54 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote: > 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?
Uhmm I think wrappers like this should be distribution specific, maybe we can put it in the examples ? Simo. -- Simo Sorce Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Senior Software Engineer at Red Hat Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
