[dm-crypt] License Clarification

Milan Broz gmazyland at gmail.com
Mon Nov 14 21:22:20 CET 2016

The original intention is documented here

Anyway, I have contacted lawyers to check it and for possible
guidance if a fix is needed.


On 11/10/2016 08:41 PM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> In reviewing the license choices of a set of my projects, I have
> noticed an inconsistency in licensing and I would like to receive some
> clarification.
> There is a commit that changes some of the code to LGPLv2.1+:
> https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/cryptsetup/commit/7eccb7ff5031a4f42f1ae8f7ffaefe80ba0d53dd
> However, the main header still reads GPLv2+:
> https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/cryptsetup/blob/master/lib/libcryptsetup.h
> Further, the API examples have LGPLv2.1+:
> https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/cryptsetup/wikis/API/index.html
> Again, the openssl crypto backend are licensed as LGPLv2.1+ w/ openssl
> exception. However, this exception doesn't seem to apply to the whole
> library:
> https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/cryptsetup/blob/master/lib/crypto_backend/crypto_openssl.c
> In short, it is very unclear to me how this licensing is supposed to work.
> The best I can ascertain is this:
> crypto-backend (LGPLv2+) ==> libcryptsetup (GPLv2+) ==> API examples (LGPLv2+)
> It would, thus, seem to me that the API examples are incompatibly
> licensed and cannot actually link against libcryptsetup.
> Further, it seems to me that the crypto-backend can link against
> openssl, but not libcryptsetup itself. This further implies that
> consumers of libcryptsetup cannot link against openssl.
> Have I understood this correctly?
> _______________________________________________
> dm-crypt mailing list
> dm-crypt at saout.de
> http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt

More information about the dm-crypt mailing list