On Fri, 28.03.08 12:50, DSK (dsk.in.2007 at gmail.com) wrote: > Hi all, > > I see that the daemon side has a GPL License and the client side > library has LGPL, but libatomic_ops is GPL. So wont the > libatomic_ops licensing affect the client side library licensing as > i understand that its linked to client side library as well .. > > Or is that my understanding of libatomic_ops getting linked to > client side library (i.e. libpulse) wrong? Uh? Quoting libatomic_ops' LICENSING file: <snip> Our intent is to make it easy to use libatomic_ops, in both free and proprietary software. Hence most code that we expect to be linked into a client application is covered by an MIT-style license. A few library routines are covered by the GNU General Public License. These are put into a separate library, libatomic_ops_gpl.a . </snip> We don't use the part in libatomic_ops_gpl.a. Also, on most relevant archs we now use gcc or assembler atomic primitives. libatomic_ops used is only as a fallback on archs that are not supported by gcc's atomic primitives or where we don't ship native assembler code. Hence: Everything's fine. No licensing issues anywhere in sight. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net ICQ# 11060553 http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
