SMBLibrary.Contrib License question

[gthornblad]

First of all, many thanks for this project, getting DFS-support to SMBLibrary is great!

As I understand, one of the major reasons for this project being completely separate from TalAlonis: SMBLibrary is due to licensing issues.

My question is:
Since Apache License 2.0 is a permissive license, it does not require you to license your derivative work (such as a port) under the same license. That means that you could (if you want to) license this code as LGPL and maybe that would make it easier for TalAloni to incorporate it to SMBLibrary. Is this something you have thought of and might be willing to consider?

[jahales-intel]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. I'm not opposed to it. However, I don't have time right now to spend on this.