Question about LGPL license for RPM package.
pinto.elia at gmail.com
Wed Dec 28 11:00:06 UTC 2011
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Panu Matilainen
<pmatilai at laiskiainen.org>wrote:
> On 12/26/2011 09:19 AM, Hiroyuki Iizaka wrote:
>> Of August I was asked about RPM license,
>> and I got following reply.
>> The issue of RPM's license only comes into play if you are
>>> distributing RPM itself or any changes to RPM.
>> For example, if it is using the linux os for embedded devices
>> as it would not be a problem?
>> In this case, it would distribute the rpm system.
>> Therefore, if the license of librpmdb.so / librpmio.so aren't LGPL,
>> there is a problem.
>> It means that, the proprietary software which packaged by rpm and
>> used in embedded devices, it have to open the source code.
>> So, I want to clarify that librpmdb.so and librpmio.so are LGPL or not.
> Like others have already pointed out, rpm's license has no implications on
> the content of what is packaged with it. Just like... say, creating a .zip
> archive of your own files does not make those files magically covered by
> the license of the archiver application.
> The LGPL exception in rpm's license only matters if the proprietary
> software you're talking about *links to* librpm, for all other uses GPL and
> LGPL are the same. So the question is, does it link to librpm or not?
> Last but not least: people on this list cannot give you legal advice, you
> should consult a lawyer for that.
> It would be nice to know whether if including a private copy of rpm and
yum (renamed blyum) in a proprietary product (BMC BladeLogic),
or so it seems , is a violation of the license (if using GPL in particular)
of rpm or yum. But IANAL.....
and here (same person apparently but with different mail origin)
- Panu -
> Rpm-list mailing list
> Rpm-list at lists.rpm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rpm-list