On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:27:15 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:

> > Not if we provide 3rd party apps which link against or make calls
> > directly to libclamav.
> > We are then in violation of law.
>
> How do you figure that, and how does the license field listed in the
> RPM header affect it? Note that the RPM header is only advisory.

Because, though the header is only advisory how many and how often do
packagers check the "actual" license/s contained within the source.

Or, unless someone like me raises the point, do they simply accept the
RPM header listing as being valid.

Say some packager looks at the rpm header and sees the GPL.
They happened to like the claws-mail-clamav-plugin and cannnot
understand why it was dropped.
They then find an old tarball and re-introduce it, even using the
correct license for claws-mail, GPLv3+.
But because the plugins links directly to libclamav it would have to be
released as GPLv2 which would mean it is incompatible with the
claws-mail license.
Offering that plugin, under any license would be illegal, which is why
the claws developers dropped it in the 1st place when clamav-0.9.3 was
released.

That may be an extreme case, but it is one that could occur.
That is also why I'll "holler" anytime I see a GPLv2-ish app which is
not so designated in the RPM header.


  Charles

--
The perfect lover is one who turns into a pizza at 4:00 A.M.
   -- Charles Pierce
----------------------
Mandriva Linux release 2009.0 (Cooker) for x86_64$
On SuperSize....http://www.eslrahc.com
Registered Linux user #182463
2.6.24.7-tmb-desktop-1mdv AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 6400+
----------------------