The original intention is documented here http://www.saout.de/pipermail/dm-crypt/2012-December/002992.html Anyway, I have contacted lawyers to check it and for possible guidance if a fix is needed. Thanks, Milan On 11/10/2016 08:41 PM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > In reviewing the license choices of a set of my projects, I have > noticed an inconsistency in licensing and I would like to receive some > clarification. > > There is a commit that changes some of the code to LGPLv2.1+: > https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/cryptsetup/commit/7eccb7ff5031a4f42f1ae8f7ffaefe80ba0d53dd > > However, the main header still reads GPLv2+: > https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/cryptsetup/blob/master/lib/libcryptsetup.h > > Further, the API examples have LGPLv2.1+: > https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/cryptsetup/wikis/API/index.html > > Again, the openssl crypto backend are licensed as LGPLv2.1+ w/ openssl > exception. However, this exception doesn't seem to apply to the whole > library: > https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/cryptsetup/blob/master/lib/crypto_backend/crypto_openssl.c > > In short, it is very unclear to me how this licensing is supposed to work. > > The best I can ascertain is this: > > crypto-backend (LGPLv2+) ==> libcryptsetup (GPLv2+) ==> API examples (LGPLv2+) > > It would, thus, seem to me that the API examples are incompatibly > licensed and cannot actually link against libcryptsetup. > > Further, it seems to me that the crypto-backend can link against > openssl, but not libcryptsetup itself. This further implies that > consumers of libcryptsetup cannot link against openssl. > > Have I understood this correctly? > _______________________________________________ > dm-crypt mailing list > dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx > http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt > _______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
