<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Panu Matilainen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pmatilai@laiskiainen.org">pmatilai@laiskiainen.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On 12/26/2011 09:19 AM, Hiroyuki Iizaka wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Hello,<br>
<br>
Of August I was asked about RPM license,<br>
and I got following reply.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
The issue of RPM's license only comes into play if you are<br>
distributing RPM itself or any changes to RPM.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
For example, if it is using the linux os for embedded devices<br>
as it would not be a problem?<br>
In this case, it would distribute the rpm system.<br>
<br>
Therefore, if the license of librpmdb.so / librpmio.so aren't LGPL,<br>
there is a problem.<br>
<br>
It means that, the proprietary software which packaged by rpm and<br>
used in embedded devices, it have to open the source code.<br>
<br>
So, I want to clarify that librpmdb.so and librpmio.so are LGPL or not.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
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.<br>

<br>
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?<br>

<br>
Last but not least: people on this list cannot give you legal advice, you should consult a lawyer for that.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br></font></span></blockquote><div><span id="result_box" class="" lang="en"><span class="hps">It would be</span> <span class="hps">nice</span> <span class="hps">to know</span> <span class="hps">whether if including a </span><span class="hps"></span><span class="hps">private copy of </span> <span class="hps">rpm</span> <span class="hps">and yum</span> <span class="hps atn">(</span><span class="">renamed blyum</span><span>)</span> <span class="hps">in a</span> <span class="hps">proprietary product</span><span> (BMC BladeLogic),</span><br>
 <span class="hps">or so it seems</span><span> ,</span> <span class="hps">is a violation</span> <span class="hps">of the license</span><span> (if using GPL in particular) of rpm or yum. But IANAL.....<br><br>For example<br>
</span></span></div><div><a href="https://communities.bmc.com/communities/message/216165">https://communities.bmc.com/communities/message/216165</a> <br><br>and here (same person apparently but with different mail origin)<br>
<br><a href="http://lists.baseurl.org/pipermail/yum/2010-May/023309.html">http://lists.baseurl.org/pipermail/yum/2010-May/023309.html</a><br><br><a href="http://lists.baseurl.org/pipermail/yum/2010-May/023313.html">http://lists.baseurl.org/pipermail/yum/2010-May/023313.html</a><br>
<br><br><br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
        - Panu -</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Rpm-list mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Rpm-list@lists.rpm.org" target="_blank">Rpm-list@lists.rpm.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list" target="_blank">http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/<u></u>listinfo/rpm-list</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>