On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 23:36 +0200, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: > Package: linux-tools-2.6.36 > Version: 2.6.36-1~experimental.1 > Severity: serious > > /usr/share/doc/linux-tools-2.6.36/copyright gives me the impression > that we have a license to distribute /usr/bin/perf_2.6.36 only under > the terms of the GPLv2. Is this correct? > > It seems that perf_2.6.36 uses openssl: > > $ ldd /usr/bin/perf_2.6.36|grep ssl > libssl.so.0.9.8 => /usr/lib/libssl.so.0.9.8 (0x00007f20fad1f000) > > Has perf upstream given an exception to GPLv2 to allow us to do this > or is this indeed a real problem?
I have no idea what the upstream developers intended, they seem a bit clueless about distribution. I only just realised that they try to use libbfd (GPLv3, incompatible) even though perf can get the same functionality from libiberty (GPLv2)! Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
