On 29 March 2011 10:53, Steve Langasek <steve.langa...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Konstantinos,
> There must be some misunderstanding here; no license that prohibited > distribution of binaries built from modified source would be considered a > Free Software license, and zlib is certainly considered free. :) Yes, you're right, the problem is that a modified zlib would have to be clearly marked as different -ie the package name would have to be different. This would be easily solved by means of a Provides: field, but I'm unsure if the differentiation also should include the libz.so filename. I was probably wrong in my license interpretation in 2005, but I seem to remember it was something like that that basically made me stop my work in vectorizing zlib :) I'd love to be corrected if it meant having a NEON-optimized zlib in 2011 :) > The only relevant requirements in the license (according to > /usr/share/doc/zlib1g/copyright) are: > > 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not > claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software > in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be > appreciated but is not required. > 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be > misrepresented as being the original software. Yes, 2 is the problem, I think this was interpreted as having to rename the package and possibly the .so name. > Are you looking at a different zlib license than this one? No, it's the same. Konstantinos _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
