On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 20:19 -0400, Charles A Edwards wrote:
> 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.

yes, I know, and it's why the new license policy exists. but the new
license policy is still not canonical until someone patches rpmlint to
handle it. the old policy is still okay until then.
--
adamw