On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 09:08 +0200, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk writes:
I have no idea what the upstream developers intended, they seem a bit
clueless about distribution. I only just realised that they try to use
libbfd (GPLv3, incompatible) even though
Package: linux-tools-2.6.36
Version: 2.6.36-1~experimental.1
Severity: serious
/usr/share/doc/linux-tools-2.6.36/copyright gives me the impression
that we have a license to distribute /usr/bin/perf_2.6.36 only under
the terms of the GPLv2. Is this correct?
It seems that perf_2.6.36 uses openssl:
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 23:36 +0200, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
Package: linux-tools-2.6.36
Version: 2.6.36-1~experimental.1
Severity: serious
/usr/share/doc/linux-tools-2.6.36/copyright gives me the impression
that we have a license to distribute /usr/bin/perf_2.6.36 only under
the terms
On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 03:36 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 23:36 +0200, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
Package: linux-tools-2.6.36
Version: 2.6.36-1~experimental.1
Severity: serious
/usr/share/doc/linux-tools-2.6.36/copyright gives me the impression
that we have a
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk writes:
I have no idea what the upstream developers intended, they seem a bit
clueless about distribution. I only just realised that they try to use
libbfd (GPLv3, incompatible) even though perf can get the same
functionality from libiberty (GPLv2)!
Hmm,
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk writes:
Since perf doesn't use any of the functionality in libssl via Python,
I'm not convinced there's a problem here.
Good. Would it be appropriate to describe this in copyright file
though?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
6 matches
Mail list logo