On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 10:00:03PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 17:14 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 06:03:37PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > > I'm not sure where you get that from. The usual interpretation is that
> > > linking
On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 17:14 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 06:03:37PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > I'm not sure where you get that from. The usual interpretation is that
> > linking to a GPLed library means the linked work must be GPL as well.
>
> I
On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 22:00 +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> compiled code, or copy relocations copying arbitrary amounts of data
> into an executable. It seems pretty clear that this can be considered a
Rereading that, copy relocations are actually not that good an example
since the copying normally
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 06:03:37PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 01:47:56PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:40:17AM +0200, Krzysztof Jackiewicz wrote:
> > > > No, that makes no sense. It'd mean that putting two zip files that
> I interpret them as FSF wanting to drum up the importance of GPL a bit by
> purposefully not clarifying this area. The case of linking non-GPL
software with
> GPL libraries is quite common and important, and if they wanted to add an
entry
> to the FAQ, they certainly would. They talk a lot about
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:40:17AM +0200, Krzysztof Jackiewicz wrote:
> > No, that makes no sense. It'd mean that putting two zip files that one
> > provides
> > and the other uses a function with the same name next to one another would
> > make them somehow connected and derivatives of one
> You need to consult a lawyer to get a definitive answer for this, please don't
> ask developers for legal advice :)
Yeah, it seems so :) Initially I thought that the answer is more obvious.
___
systemd-devel mailing list
> No, that makes no sense. It'd mean that putting two zip files that one
> provides
> and the other uses a function with the same name next to one another would
> make them somehow connected and derivatives of one another. The whole
> point of dynamic linking is that you can provide independent
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:26:21PM +0200, Krzysztof Jackiewicz wrote:
> Thanks, for explanation.
>
> > - a collection of rpms, like a linux distro, including systemd.rpm,
> > libcryptsetup.rpm, and thousands of other loosely coupled rpms
> > → that's a mere aggregation, each of the thousands
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:26:21PM +0200, Krzysztof Jackiewicz wrote:
> Thanks, for explanation.
>
> > - a collection of rpms, like a linux distro, including systemd.rpm,
> > libcryptsetup.rpm, and thousands of other loosely coupled rpms
> > → that's a mere aggregation, each of the thousands
Thanks, for explanation.
> - a collection of rpms, like a linux distro, including systemd.rpm,
> libcryptsetup.rpm, and thousands of other loosely coupled rpms
> → that's a mere aggregation, each of the thousands of components carries
> it's own license, each has to be satisfied separately
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 11:47:58AM +0200, Krzysztof Jackiewicz wrote:
> > Not sure what "release product under GPL" is supposed to mean.
>
> The combined work would have to be licensed under GPL according to:
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
>
> Not sure what "release product under GPL" is supposed to mean.
The combined work would have to be licensed under GPL according to:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
I think that it means that the code has to be
On Wed, 07.06.17 09:49, Krzysztof Jackiewicz (k.jackiew...@samsung.com) wrote:
> I guess the "conflict" was not the best word to describe it.
>
> If I want to release a product with systemd the libryptsetup option will
> force me to release it under GPL. Is that correct?
Not sure what "release
.pl]
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 5:00 PM
To: Krzysztof Jackiewicz
Cc: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Systemd license vs. libcryptsetup license
On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 04:33:11PM +0200, Krzysztof Jackiewicz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that when sy
On Tue, 06.06.17 16:33, Krzysztof Jackiewicz (k.jackiew...@samsung.com) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that when systemd is configured with libcryptsetup option enabled
> it will link to libcryptsetup which is distributed under GPL 2.0. It seems
> like a license conflict to me. Can anyone explain
On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 04:33:11PM +0200, Krzysztof Jackiewicz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that when systemd is configured with libcryptsetup option enabled
> it will link to libcryptsetup which is distributed under GPL 2.0. It seems
> like a license conflict to me. Can anyone explain it?
A
17 matches
Mail list logo
