Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Explicitly mention that the rpmio/ sub dir is under LGPL #1023

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 29, 2020

Conversation

ffesti
Copy link
Contributor

@ffesti ffesti commented Jan 29, 2020

As the code in the rpmio sub directory was split out of the lib sub dir
it is already under LGPL as "code derived from" "the source code in the
lib subdirectory" according to the license. But not having the sub directory
mentioned in the license confuses users and contributers.

So this change does not change the license of any code but only clearifies the
current situation.

Resolves: #516

@Conan-Kudo
Copy link
Member

@pmatilai Why would signing (also split out from lib) be desirable as GPL verses LGPL?

@pmatilai
Copy link
Member

Basically I think that's in line with the original split of letting everybody read rpms but only open source projects are allowed to write (to) them. Or call it a general sense of hygiene wrt binary blobs if you like 😄

@Conan-Kudo
Copy link
Member

Hmm, makes sense.

What about importing GPG keys and keyring management? That's not in sign, is it?

@pmatilai
Copy link
Member

No, signing is just, well, signing. Keyring stuff is in librpm/librpmio.

As the code in the rpmio sub directory was split out of the lib sub dir
it is already under LGPL as "code derived from" "the source code in the
lib subdirectory" according to the license. But not having the sub directory
mentioned in the license confuses users and contributers.

The original release tarballs in http://ftp.rpm.org/releases/historical/ show
the license was changed into the existing dual one between rpm 2.4.3 and 2.4.4,
and that no rpmio/ directory exists at that time. Our git repo disagrees with
the time of rpmio/ split due to some conversion artifacts (cvs to mercury to
git), as it shows rpmio/ directory existing from the first commit, but this was
not actually the case.

The license stating that the dual license is there to allow linking with librpm
from non-GPL code supports this interpretation as librpmio is required in order
to use librpm even if it is a separate library nowadays.

So this change does not change the license of any code but only clearifies the
current situation.

Resolves: rpm-software-management#516
@ffesti
Copy link
Contributor Author

ffesti commented Jan 29, 2020

Adjusted commit message to include more history and reasoning.

@pmatilai
Copy link
Member

And we have a winner.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

What license applies currently to rpm library code: GPL or LGPL?
3 participants