[dm-crypt] License Clarification
npmccallum at redhat.com
Mon Nov 14 22:47:11 CET 2016
Thanks for the response. My particular concern is the ability to link
to both libcryptsetup and openssl higher up in the stack.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Milan Broz <gmazyland at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>> There is a commit that changes some of the code to LGPLv2.1+:
>> However, the main header still reads GPLv2+:
>> Further, the API examples have LGPLv2.1+:
>> Again, the openssl crypto backend are licensed as LGPLv2.1+ w/ openssl
>> exception. However, this exception doesn't seem to apply to the whole
>> 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
More information about the dm-crypt