Re: ACL package --- GPL or LGPL?

On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 14:15, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The ACL package seems to be nearly entirely LGPL.  Almost all the .c and
> .h files are, and the only license in doc/* is LGPL.  Yet the Makefiles
> are GPLed, and the license in the canned rpm and debian build files
> mention GPL or both.
>
> And oddly, even part of libacl is GPLed (and I'd have thought libacl was
> the one most likely to need to be LGPL.)  
> 
> 	acl/libacl/perm_copy_fd.c
> 	acl/libacl/perm_copy_file.c
> 
> are both GPLed; the utilities are LGPLed except for chacl().
> 
> Is this inconsistency deliberate?  I've just had a bug report against
> the Red Hat rpms which complains that our rpm lists the package as GPL,
> where it's really LGPL.  But unless it's _all_ LGPL, we can't really
> change the rpm license tag.

The intention is to have libacl under LGPL, and the rest (e.g., the
user-space utilities) under GPL. I will check and fix that.

Thanks,
-- 
Andreas Gruenbacher <[email protected]>
SUSE Labs, SUSE LINUX GMBH

_______________________________________________
acl-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://acl.bestbits.at/mailman/listinfo/acl-devel