> 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
> 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
systemd-devel@lists.freedeskt
> 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 im
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
> 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 rel
.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 systemd
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?
Thanks in advance.
Krzy
___
systemd-devel
