Re: SBC integration license issue in BlueZ/Android
In latest code, glad to see liba2dp.so no longer dynamically links against two GPL libraries, libbluetooth.so and libhcid.so. Also see the clean up version of GPL header files bluetooth.h, sco.h and rfcomm.h inside device\system\bluetooth\bluez-clean-headers \bluetooth. Thanks to Nick's effort for isolating the GPL stuff. On Apr 22, 10:36 am, Nick Pelly npe...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Andy Quan androidr...@gmail.com wrote: Dave/Nick et al, Many thanks for your informative answers! I have very limited understanding about the infection nature of GPL. In my understanding, as long as one of the source files or linked dynamic libs used to build certain lib is infected by GPL, the rest part, no matter it is inside that lib or only used as dynamic linked libs in building, have to be GPL, that is, to be open source. It is true that sbc.c is LGPL. Then I go up a few steps and find sbc.c, sbc_primitive.c, liba2dp.c, ipc.c are used together to build liba2dp and they are also LGPL. However, as libbluetooth and a few other GPL dyamic libs are used as LOCAL_SHARED_LIBS for liba2dp, I assume that they, for example libbluetooth, would force the entire part of liba2dp to be GPL. libbluetooth is not in LOCAL_SHARED_LIBS for liba2dp in the shipping product. Every source file used to generate liba2dp is LGPL or APACHE. http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/external/bluez.git;a=blob;f... So the 'infection' of the GPL license to linked source as you describe does not apply for liba2dp. If this is true, my integration in sbc.c would have to be GPL as well, no matter it is linked as static lib or dynamic lib. In a nut-shell: If you replace liba2dp then you can use any license you like. If you modify liba2dp then those modifications will probably need to be LGPL, since liba2dp contains LGPL code. GPL/LGPL is a tricky area and I recommend you get legal advice from a lawyer familar with these licenses for an authorative answer. Nick- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups android-framework group. To post to this group, send email to android-framework@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-framework+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-framework?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: SBC integration license issue in BlueZ/Android
Bumping this up. Can someone from Google please comment on this? -Ravi On Apr 20, 12:56 am, Ravi yend...@pv.com wrote: I do see the GPL license. That's bizarre. I was under the impression that the entire android tree has to be provided with the Apache license. Maybe someone from Google can confirm. Just fyi...PacketVideo has provided their version of the SBC encoder already as part of OpenCORE [external/opencore/codecs_v2/audio/sbc]. -Ravi On Apr 20, 12:13 am, Andy Quan androidr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, As far as I remember, BlueZ is released under GPL license. Is this the same in android? If so, does this mean if I want to integrate my customized SBC encoder lib into this framework, I have to make my encoder open source? -- Thanks, Andy --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups android-framework group. To post to this group, send email to android-framework@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-framework+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-framework?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: SBC integration license issue in BlueZ/Android
Indeed, bluez is a rare part of Android that is licensed under the GPL. JBQ On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Ravi yend...@pv.com wrote: Bumping this up. Can someone from Google please comment on this? -Ravi On Apr 20, 12:56 am, Ravi yend...@pv.com wrote: I do see the GPL license. That's bizarre. I was under the impression that the entire android tree has to be provided with the Apache license. Maybe someone from Google can confirm. Just fyi...PacketVideo has provided their version of the SBC encoder already as part of OpenCORE [external/opencore/codecs_v2/audio/sbc]. -Ravi On Apr 20, 12:13 am, Andy Quan androidr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, As far as I remember, BlueZ is released under GPL license. Is this the same in android? If so, does this mean if I want to integrate my customized SBC encoder lib into this framework, I have to make my encoder open source? -- Thanks, Andy -- Jean-Baptiste M. JBQ Queru Android Engineer, Google. Questions sent directly to me that have no reason for being private will likely get ignored or forwarded to a public forum with no further warning. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups android-framework group. To post to this group, send email to android-framework@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-framework+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-framework?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: SBC integration license issue in BlueZ/Android
The BlueZ stack was deliberately isolated to accommodate the GPL license requirements without affecting the rest of the source code. On Apr 21, 2:36 pm, Jean-Baptiste Queru j...@android.com wrote: Indeed, bluez is a rare part of Android that is licensed under the GPL. JBQ On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Ravi yend...@pv.com wrote: Bumping this up. Can someone from Google please comment on this? -Ravi On Apr 20, 12:56 am, Ravi yend...@pv.com wrote: I do see the GPL license. That's bizarre. I was under the impression that the entire android tree has to be provided with the Apache license. Maybe someone from Google can confirm. Just fyi...PacketVideo has provided their version of the SBC encoder already as part of OpenCORE [external/opencore/codecs_v2/audio/sbc]. -Ravi On Apr 20, 12:13 am, Andy Quan androidr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, As far as I remember, BlueZ is released under GPL license. Is this the same in android? If so, does this mean if I want to integrate my customized SBC encoder lib into this framework, I have to make my encoder open source? -- Thanks, Andy -- Jean-Baptiste M. JBQ Queru Android Engineer, Google. Questions sent directly to me that have no reason for being private will likely get ignored or forwarded to a public forum with no further warning. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups android-framework group. To post to this group, send email to android-framework@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-framework+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-framework?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: SBC integration license issue in BlueZ/Android
Also, the SBC encoder is LPGL not GPL. Nick On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Dave Sparks davidspa...@android.comwrote: The BlueZ stack was deliberately isolated to accommodate the GPL license requirements without affecting the rest of the source code. On Apr 21, 2:36 pm, Jean-Baptiste Queru j...@android.com wrote: Indeed, bluez is a rare part of Android that is licensed under the GPL. JBQ On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Ravi yend...@pv.com wrote: Bumping this up. Can someone from Google please comment on this? -Ravi On Apr 20, 12:56 am, Ravi yend...@pv.com wrote: I do see the GPL license. That's bizarre. I was under the impression that the entire android tree has to be provided with the Apache license. Maybe someone from Google can confirm. Just fyi...PacketVideo has provided their version of the SBC encoder already as part of OpenCORE [external/opencore/codecs_v2/audio/sbc]. -Ravi On Apr 20, 12:13 am, Andy Quan androidr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, As far as I remember, BlueZ is released under GPL license. Is this the same in android? If so, does this mean if I want to integrate my customized SBC encoder lib into this framework, I have to make my encoder open source? -- Thanks, Andy -- Jean-Baptiste M. JBQ Queru Android Engineer, Google. Questions sent directly to me that have no reason for being private will likely get ignored or forwarded to a public forum with no further warning. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups android-framework group. To post to this group, send email to android-framework@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-framework+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-framework?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: SBC integration license issue in BlueZ/Android
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Andy Quan androidr...@gmail.com wrote: Dave/Nick et al, Many thanks for your informative answers! I have very limited understanding about the infection nature of GPL. In my understanding, as long as one of the source files or linked dynamic libs used to build certain lib is infected by GPL, the rest part, no matter it is inside that lib or only used as dynamic linked libs in building, have to be GPL, that is, to be open source. It is true that sbc.c is LGPL. Then I go up a few steps and find sbc.c, sbc_primitive.c, liba2dp.c, ipc.c are used together to build liba2dp and they are also LGPL. However, as libbluetooth and a few other GPL dyamic libs are used as LOCAL_SHARED_LIBS for liba2dp, I assume that they, for example libbluetooth, would force the entire part of liba2dp to be GPL. libbluetooth is not in LOCAL_SHARED_LIBS for liba2dp in the shipping product. Every source file used to generate liba2dp is LGPL or APACHE. http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/external/bluez.git;a=blob;f=utils/audio/Android.mk;h=c0b4d107ff6a280aecf489e582697e79d8d2013c;hb=HEAD So the 'infection' of the GPL license to linked source as you describe does not apply for liba2dp. If this is true, my integration in sbc.c would have to be GPL as well, no matter it is linked as static lib or dynamic lib. In a nut-shell: If you replace liba2dp then you can use any license you like. If you modify liba2dp then those modifications will probably need to be LGPL, since liba2dp contains LGPL code. GPL/LGPL is a tricky area and I recommend you get legal advice from a lawyer familar with these licenses for an authorative answer. Nick --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups android-framework group. To post to this group, send email to android-framework@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-framework+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-framework?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: SBC integration license issue in BlueZ/Android
I do see the GPL license. That's bizarre. I was under the impression that the entire android tree has to be provided with the Apache license. Maybe someone from Google can confirm. Just fyi...PacketVideo has provided their version of the SBC encoder already as part of OpenCORE [external/opencore/codecs_v2/audio/sbc]. -Ravi On Apr 20, 12:13 am, Andy Quan androidr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, As far as I remember, BlueZ is released under GPL license. Is this the same in android? If so, does this mean if I want to integrate my customized SBC encoder lib into this framework, I have to make my encoder open source? -- Thanks, Andy --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups android-framework group. To post to this group, send email to android-framework@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-framework+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-framework?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
