On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:07:05AM +0300, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote: > On 29 March 2011 10:53, Steve Langasek <steve.langa...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi Konstantinos,
> > There must be some misunderstanding here; no license that prohibited > > distribution of binaries built from modified source would be considered a > > Free Software license, and zlib is certainly considered free. :) > Yes, you're right, the problem is that a modified zlib would have to be > clearly marked as different -ie the package name would have to be > different. I don't think this is a correct interpretation of the license. You don't have to change a package name to "plainly mark" the source as modified; debian/copyright, changelogs, notices in the source files accomplish this. This is done for packages all the time, not just for zlib. > I was probably wrong in my license interpretation in 2005, but I seem to > remember it was something like that that basically made me stop my work in > vectorizing zlib :) What a shame! I think you could have gone ahead in good conscience :) > I'd love to be corrected if it meant having a NEON-optimized zlib in 2011 :) And I don't see any reason we can't go ahead with this now! -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
