On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Soh Kam Yung <sohkamyung@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Alan Jenkins > <sourcejedi.lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 10/28/09, Soh Kam Yung <sohkamyung@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> This is a follow-up to this mail sent by Kay Sievers >>> [http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/14653] which has >>> this statement: >>> >>> "libudev is LGPL, only the daemon and the tools are GPL." >>> >>> I've checked through the headers for the source code in the udev/lib >>> directory for udev-142 source tar file. They are all marked as >>> licensed under the LGPL. >>> >>> However, one file, libudev-device-db-write.c, has a #include "udev.h". >>> The file udev/udev.h is licensed under the GPL. >>> >>> Does this affect Kay's statement that libudev is LGPL? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Kam-Yung >> >> That file should not be linked into libudev; it's only needed to >> implement the udev dameon itself. Only udevd is allowed to write to >> the database. >> >> It might even be an accident; it seems odd that it would really need udev.h. >> >> Regards >> Alan >> > > In udev-142, libudev-device-db-write.c uses > udev_selinux_setfscreatecon() and udev_selinux_resetfscreatecon() in > udev_device_update_db(), which is declared in udev.h. > > Regards, > Kam-Yung Hello, Is there any updates on this query? Does the presence of the #include "udev.h" in the libudev code change the LGPL status of libudev in udev-142 or will this be taken care of in a future udev release? Regards, Kam-Yung -- Soh Kam Yung my Google Reader Shared links: (http://www.google.com/reader/shared/16851815156817689753) my Google Reader Shared SFAS links: (http://www.google.com/reader/shared/user/16851815156817689753/label/sfas) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
