pkg kde talk - Nov 2007 - Upcoming possible licensing issues kde vs samba

Hi samba people

Rumors out in the wild says that the upcoming samba release is under some 
GPLv3 (or maybe LGPLv3).

Qt (and thus kde) is GPLv2 only.

It seems to be that GPLv2 is incompatible with GPLv3 and LGPLv3, so if samba 
gets upgraded to a GPLv3  version, we are going to have problems with KDE.

I don''t know the proper solution to this - and a Qt + kde relicensing
to GPLv2
or later isn''t happening anytime soon. At least not within the next 4-6
months - maybe never.

I hope that you nice samba people with take this into account when doing newer 
upstream samba releases.

(KDE uses libsmbclient)

/Sune
 - one of your friendly kde packagers
-- 
I cannot unmount the line, how does it work?

First from Mac 99 or from the panel inside AutoCAD you should telnet from a 
computer for installing on a icon.

Am Freitag, den 02.11.2007, 00:55 +0200 schrieb Sune Vuorela:

Hello,
> Rumors out in the wild says that the upcoming samba release is under some 
> GPLv3 (or maybe LGPLv3).
FYI: Its not a rumors its official:

http://news.samba.org/announcements/samba_gplv3/

-- 
No?l K?the <noel debian.org>
Debian GNU/Linux, www.debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Url :
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-kde-talk/attachments/20071102/a505215b/attachment.pgp

Am Donnerstag, 1. November 2007 schrieb Sune Vuorela:
> It seems to be that GPLv2 is incompatible with GPLv3 and LGPLv3,
What is the rationale or source for this assessment?
> so if samba gets upgraded to a GPLv3 ?version, we are going to have
problems
> with KDE.
Considering the wide range of software that KDE links with, this issue will 
only become more widespread, even if Samba 3.2 were held up a bit.  It would 
be wise to discuss this with the upstream developers.

On Friday 02 November 2007, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 1. November 2007 schrieb Sune Vuorela:
> > It seems to be that GPLv2 is incompatible with GPLv3 and LGPLv3,
>
> What is the rationale or source for this assessment?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility
> > so if samba gets upgraded to a GPLv3 ?version, we are going to have
> > problems with KDE.
>
> Considering the wide range of software that KDE links with, this issue will
> only become more widespread, even if Samba 3.2 were held up a bit.  It
> would be wise to discuss this with the upstream developers.
It is a issue known upstream - and some people are working at it, but e.g. 
getting qt and kde relicensed to gplv2 or later isn''t something that
can
happen overnight.

/Sune
-- 
Genius, I cannot open a cable from MkLinuxPPC NT and from the preferences menu 
inside iMacOS, how does it work?

You either should close the connection, or have to receive a button and you 
must ping the virus, this way you must turn off the driver on a processor to 
the utility of a Fast firewall to the digital editor but from DOS or from the 
control panel menu inside Office 4.6.2 you neither can delete from a board on 
the MIDI SMTP sendmail, nor can ever install a laser ISA FPU, in such way 
then from the control file within Word XP you need not to upload a file over 
the e-mail on a mousepad in order to debug the code.

On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 12:55:43AM +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> Rumors out in the wild says that the upcoming samba release is under some 
> GPLv3 (or maybe LGPLv3).
> Qt (and thus kde) is GPLv2 only.
> It seems to be that GPLv2 is incompatible with GPLv3 and LGPLv3, so if
samba
> gets upgraded to a GPLv3  version, we are going to have problems with KDE.
Damn, I overlooked this when reviewing the licenses of smbclient-using
packages in Debian on behalf of upstream, because the debian/copyright in
kdebase itself doesn''t mention GPLv2 it only mentions GPL. :/  I
don''t know
whether it would have made a difference to upstream''s plans, but
I''m still
annoyed with myself at the oversight.
> I don''t know the proper solution to this - and a Qt + kde
relicensing to GPLv2
> or later isn''t happening anytime soon. At least not within the
next 4-6
> months - maybe never.
> I hope that you nice samba people with take this into account when doing
newer
> upstream samba releases.
> (KDE uses libsmbclient)
The upstream roadmap is already set, and IIRC that includes a fixed 12-month
upstream support cycle for the GPLv2 version of Samba following the release
of Samba 3.2.0.  If push comes to shove, we could probably package /just/
the libsmbclient from Samba 3.0.x, but I wouldn''t want us to freeze on
3.0
for the rest of the components for an indefinite period.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon at debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sune,
> Rumors out in the wild says that the upcoming samba release is 
> under some GPLv3 (or maybe LGPLv3).
No rumors.  The official announcement was posted to
http://news.samba.org/announcements/samba_gplv3/
> Qt (and thus kde) is GPLv2 only.
You''ll need to get TrollTech to add libsmbclient to its list of
exceptions for their GPLv2 only code.  I spoke with Jeremy Allison
(another Samba dev who spends more time on licensing issues than
I do) about this specifically a few days ago.
> It seems to be that GPLv2 is incompatible with GPLv3 and LGPLv3, 
> so if samba  gets upgraded to a GPLv3  version, we are going
> to have problems with KDE.
> 
> I don''t know the proper solution to this - and a Qt + kde
relicensing to GPLv2
> or later isn''t happening anytime soon. At least not within the
next 4-6
> months - maybe never.
> 
> I hope that you nice samba people with take this into 
> account when doing newer  upstream samba releases.
We (Samba) did take it into account when moving to the GPLv2.
The solution is for TrollTech to add libsmbclient as an exception.
Or you can continue to package the libsmbclient library
from the Samba 3.0 releases which will continue to be GPLv2
but is being placed into struct maintenance mode as of the initial
Samba 3.2.0 release.




cheers, jerry
- --
====================================================================Samba       
------- http://www.samba.org
Centeris                         -----------  http://www.centeris.com
"What man is a man who does not make the world better?"      --Balian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHK0YtIR7qMdg1EfYRAvGsAJ47EVkix4jhT45/P/0o249mGYgGagCfXbQO
0f/hE27VP0h22uH6PFOEY68=8wbC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 1. November 2007 schrieb Sune Vuorela:
>> It seems to be that GPLv2 is incompatible with GPLv3 and LGPLv3,
> 
> What is the rationale or source for this assessment?
It''s the GPLv2 only code that is listed as incompatible at
the following URL: http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq






cheers, jerry
- --
====================================================================Samba       
------- http://www.samba.org
Centeris                         -----------  http://www.centeris.com
"What man is a man who does not make the world better?"      --Balian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHK0c2IR7qMdg1EfYRAvLHAKCLByk7P+U76GFJIDH9VzWS7//hXACgnZw5
0rcOcCpC+eD6pQZNX/7Sd2w=SsBf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 11:45:49AM -0400, Gerald (Jerry) Carter
wrote:
> You''ll need to get TrollTech to add libsmbclient to its list of
> exceptions for their GPLv2 only code.  I spoke with Jeremy Allison
> (another Samba dev who spends more time on licensing issues than
> I do) about this specifically a few days ago.
That''s not sufficient, GPL 3 still can''t link to it (even if
it can
link to GPL 3).  libsmbclient would need an exception for qt too.

Jonathan

On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 04:25:20PM +0000, Jonathan Riddell
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 11:45:49AM -0400, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> > You''ll need to get TrollTech to add libsmbclient to its list
of
> > exceptions for their GPLv2 only code.  I spoke with Jeremy Allison
> > (another Samba dev who spends more time on licensing issues than
> > I do) about this specifically a few days ago.
> 
> That''s not sufficient, GPL 3 still can''t link to it (even
if it can
> link to GPL 3).  libsmbclient would need an exception for qt too.
libsmbclient doesn''t need an exception as the LGPL3 license is
compatible with GPLv2 only, it''s the GPLv2-only that''s
incompatible
with LGPLv3. Qt needs to add "and LGPLv3 code" to the list of
exceptions for compatible licenses.

Jeremy.

On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 09:57:12AM -0700, Jeremy Allison
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 04:25:20PM +0000, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 11:45:49AM -0400, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> > > You''ll need to get TrollTech to add libsmbclient to its
list of
> > > exceptions for their GPLv2 only code.  I spoke with Jeremy
Allison
> > > (another Samba dev who spends more time on licensing issues than
> > > I do) about this specifically a few days ago.
> > 
> > That''s not sufficient, GPL 3 still can''t link to it
(even if it can
> > link to GPL 3).  libsmbclient would need an exception for qt too.
> 
> libsmbclient doesn''t need an exception as the LGPL3 license is
> compatible with GPLv2 only, it''s the GPLv2-only that''s
incompatible
> with LGPLv3. Qt needs to add "and LGPLv3 code" to the list of
> exceptions for compatible licenses.
Doh ! Scratch that :-). Of course libsmbclient is *GPLv3*, not
LGPLv3 :-). Need more coffee :-).

Jeremy.

Quoting Sune Vuorela (Sune at vuorela.dk):
> > Considering the wide range of software that KDE links with, this issue
will
> > only become more widespread, even if Samba 3.2 were held up a bit.  It
> > would be wise to discuss this with the upstream developers.
> 
> It is a issue known upstream - and some people are working at it, but e.g. 
> getting qt and kde relicensed to gplv2 or later isn''t something
that can
> happen overnight.

Well, I''m anything but a specialist in licensing and legalese, but is
there really something that prevents a GPLv2 software to be linked
with a GPLv3 library?

I would be really surprised if people who hardly worked on GPLv3 never
thought about that situation which is obviously highly probable in the
transition phase.

Time to put debian-legal in the loop?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-kde-talk/attachments/20071103/772093cb/attachment.pgp

On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 04:25:20PM +0000, Jonathan Riddell
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 11:45:49AM -0400, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> > You''ll need to get TrollTech to add libsmbclient to its list
of
> > exceptions for their GPLv2 only code.  I spoke with Jeremy Allison
> > (another Samba dev who spends more time on licensing issues than
> > I do) about this specifically a few days ago.
> 
> That''s not sufficient, GPL 3 still can''t link to it (even
if it can
> link to GPL 3).  libsmbclient would need an exception for qt too.
Yes, I''ve been thinking about this some more. You''re
correct, v2-only and v3 are incompatible (see here:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html

for details). There is a large amount of core Samba code
in libsmbclient and we don''t want to make that LGPL (not
even LGPLv3) at this time.

Gnome doesn''t have this problem as it''s already under a
v2-or-later license.

I suggest you try and persuade TrollTech to make Qt available
under a v2-or-later license. This is a problem for KDE that
will only grow worse over time if this isn''t addressed.

Jeremy.

On Saturday 03 November 2007, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Well, I''m anything but a specialist in licensing and legalese, but
is
> there really something that prevents a GPLv2 software to be linked
> with a GPLv3 library?
Yes. GPLv2 has a "no additional restrictions"-clause. GPLv3 have a set
of
extra restrictions.
> I would be really surprised if people who hardly worked on GPLv3 never
> thought about that situation which is obviously highly probable in the
> transition phase.
The situation is thought of and documented on for example fsf homepage. FSF 
people are advocating "GPLv2 or later" as the solution.


> Time to put debian-legal in the loop?
Well.. that doesn''t change anything.


/Sune

-- 
Man, do you know how may I reconfigure a pin on the jumper?

You cannot install a file for cancelling the Ultra-wide GUI.

On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 12:55:43AM +0200, Sune Vuorela
wrote:
> Hi samba people
> 
> Rumors out in the wild says that the upcoming samba release is under some 
> GPLv3 (or maybe LGPLv3).
> 
> Qt (and thus kde) is GPLv2 only.
> 
> It seems to be that GPLv2 is incompatible with GPLv3 and LGPLv3, so if
samba
> gets upgraded to a GPLv3  version, we are going to have problems with KDE.
> 
> I don''t know the proper solution to this - and a Qt + kde
relicensing to GPLv2
> or later isn''t happening anytime soon. At least not within the
next 4-6
> months - maybe never.
> 
> I hope that you nice samba people with take this into account when doing
newer
> upstream samba releases.
> 
> (KDE uses libsmbclient)
>
Brief update of this thread, KDE people is working on relicense their stuff,
look
at: http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KDE_Relicensing

So luckily we''ll manage to solve all the problems with KDE depends.

Ana

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ana Guerrero wrote:
> Brief update of this thread, KDE people is working on relicense 
> their stuff, look
> at: http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KDE_Relicensing
> 
> So luckily we''ll manage to solve all the problems with 
> KDE depends.
Thanks Ana.



cheers, jerry
- --
====================================================================Samba       
------- http://www.samba.org
Centeris                         -----------  http://www.centeris.com
"What man is a man who does not make the world better?"      --Balian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHM2TIIR7qMdg1EfYRAlPJAKCb7NCYGTvoSKj+m+KQBJsu7o/8dgCggMul
JsPdQGT/+5iX7oPsTgYEHz0=dlTw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Quoting Ana Guerrero (ana at debian.org):
> Brief update of this thread, KDE people is working on relicense their
stuff, look
> at: http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KDE_Relicensing
> 
> So luckily we''ll manage to solve all the problems with KDE
depends.

So, will this mean a new upstream for KDE and, therefore, we would
have to wait for it to upload samba 3.2.0 or is a relicensing possible
with current 3.5.8?

I''d of course prefer any solution that allows us to upload samba 3.2.0
as soon as upstream releases it. Jerry, any schedule for the release
of 3.2.0? You will probably release some rc versions, right?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-kde-talk/attachments/20071109/b3006a1f/attachment.pgp

On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 05:11:52PM +0000, Christian Perrier
wrote:
> Quoting Ana Guerrero (ana at debian.org):
> 
> > Brief update of this thread, KDE people is working on relicense their
stuff, look
> > at: http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KDE_Relicensing
> > 
> > So luckily we''ll manage to solve all the problems with KDE
depends.
> 
> 
> So, will this mean a new upstream for KDE and, therefore, we would
> have to wait for it to upload samba 3.2.0 or is a relicensing possible
> with current 3.5.8?
>
No, i do not think we''ll have this solved with KDE 3.5.8 (or later),
that is
likely the version to be shipped with Lenny... in that page they are working
over the list of KDE4 files.
Plus, after the KDE project, we need Trolltech change the Qt3/4 licence. I guess
in the end they''ll change Qt4, but Qt3 has already reach end of life
status, so
I do not know...
> I''d of course prefer any solution that allows us to upload samba
3.2.0
> as soon as upstream releases it. Jerry, any schedule for the release
> of 3.2.0? You will probably release some rc versions, right?
We''ll need maintain both samba versions in the archive or at least
current
libsmbclient, that is what kde needs.


Ana

On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 07:44:48PM +0100, Ana Guerrero
wrote:
> > I''d of course prefer any solution that allows us to upload
samba 3.2.0
> > as soon as upstream releases it. Jerry, any schedule for the release
> > of 3.2.0? You will probably release some rc versions, right?
> We''ll need maintain both samba versions in the archive or at least
current
> libsmbclient, that is what kde needs.
We will certainly not be maintaining both samba versions in the archive.

Keeping around the current libsmbclient is probably ok.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon at debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Quoting Ana Guerrero (ana at debian.org):
> We''ll need maintain both samba versions in the archive or at least
current
> libsmbclient, that is what kde needs.

OK, I feared that..:-)

So, as this is something we''ll have to keep for lenny, we have to
create a samba30 source package that provides libsmbclient30 only so
that KDE can link to it while we continue shipping "samba" for 3.2.x
and later.

Anyone in the samba packaging team feeling like working on this? This
is quite a blocker as missing such package will prevent us to release
3.2.0 when it is out.




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-kde-talk/attachments/20071112/d4c811ea/attachment.pgp

On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 06:09:16AM +0000, Christian Perrier
wrote:
> Quoting Ana Guerrero (ana at debian.org):
> 
> > We''ll need maintain both samba versions in the archive or at
least current
> > libsmbclient, that is what kde needs.
> 
> 
> OK, I feared that..:-)
>
Sorry :)
> So, as this is something we''ll have to keep for lenny, we have to
> create a samba30 source package that provides libsmbclient30 only so
> that KDE can link to it while we continue shipping "samba" for
3.2.x
> and later.
>
Ok, let me know when you upload it and i''ll change the b-d on
libsmbclient-dev
to whatever you call it.

Thanks a lot!
Ana

On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 09:53:54PM +0100, Ana Guerrero
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 06:09:16AM +0000, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > Quoting Ana Guerrero (ana at debian.org):
> > > We''ll need maintain both samba versions in the archive
or at least current
> > > libsmbclient, that is what kde needs.
> > OK, I feared that..:-)
> Sorry :)
> > So, as this is something we''ll have to keep for lenny, we
have to
> > create a samba30 source package that provides libsmbclient30 only so
> > that KDE can link to it while we continue shipping "samba"
for 3.2.x
> > and later.
> Ok, let me know when you upload it and i''ll change the b-d on
libsmbclient-dev
> to whatever you call it.
I expect "libsmbclient-gpl2-dev", since that describes what it is.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon at debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Quoting Steve Langasek (vorlon at debian.org):
> > Ok, let me know when you upload it and i''ll change the b-d on
libsmbclient-dev
> > to whatever you call it.
> 
> I expect "libsmbclient-gpl2-dev", since that describes what it
is.
Good suggestion.

What about the source package name? "libsmbclient-gpl2" or
"samba-gpl2"?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-kde-talk/attachments/20071113/f05aa348/attachment.pgp

On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 06:36:44AM +0000, Christian Perrier
wrote:
> Quoting Steve Langasek (vorlon at debian.org):
> > > Ok, let me know when you upload it and i''ll change the
b-d on libsmbclient-dev
> > > to whatever you call it.
> > I expect "libsmbclient-gpl2-dev", since that describes what
it is.
> Good suggestion.
> What about the source package name? "libsmbclient-gpl2" or
"samba-gpl2"?
libsmbclient-gpl2 also seems reasonable to me as a source/binary package
name.

Cheers,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon at debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

On Sunday 11 November 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 07:44:48PM +0100, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> > > I''d of course prefer any solution that allows us to
upload samba 3.2.0
> > > as soon as upstream releases it. Jerry, any schedule for the
release
> > > of 3.2.0? You will probably release some rc versions, right?
> >
> > We''ll need maintain both samba versions in the archive or at
least
> > current libsmbclient, that is what kde needs.
>
> We will certainly not be maintaining both samba versions in the archive.
>
> Keeping around the current libsmbclient is probably ok.
Is parts of the smbclient package also what you consider being libsmbclient ?

It seems like the smbclient and rpcclient binaries is used.

kdelibs/kdeprint/cups/cupsaddsmb2.cpp:  
m_proc << "smbclient" << QString::fromLatin 
("//")+m_servered->text()+"/print$";
kdelibs/kdeprint/cups/cupsaddsmb2.cpp:  
m_proc << "rpcclient" << m_servered->text();


kdelibs/kdeprint/lpr/apshandler.cpp:                    QString 
smbname(sysconfDir() + "/" + prt->printerName() +
"/smbclient.conf");

kdelibs/kdeprint/lpr/matichandler.cpp:  m_smbpath = 
KStandardDirs::findExe("smbclient");

/Sune

-- 
I cannot delete the Internet site, how does it work?

The point is that you must install on the provider to digit on a printer.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url :
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-kde-talk/attachments/20071114/6fd7154a/attachment.pgp

On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 00:09:51 +0100, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> Is parts of the smbclient package also what you consider being libsmbclient
?
> 
> It seems like the smbclient and rpcclient binaries is used.
> 
There are no license compatibility issues if you just run binaries
afaik.

Cheers,
Julien

On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:09:51AM +0100, Sune Vuorela
wrote:
> > Keeping around the current libsmbclient is probably ok.
> Is parts of the smbclient package also what you consider being libsmbclient
?
No.  But why should that be an issue?  These are general-purpose
executables, the GPL is generally not seen as applying across such exec
barriers.

(But then, why does kde need to exec smbclient instead of using
libsmbclient?!)

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon at debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/