From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gmazyland@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-wm0-x243.google.com (mail-wm0-x243.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::243])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mail.server123.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS
 for <dm-crypt@saout.de>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 21:22:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-x243.google.com with SMTP id u144so18675194wmu.0
 for <dm-crypt@saout.de>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 12:22:22 -0800 (PST)
References: <CAOASepMPZrQaUmL2KTTDk4tEGOypO-xXFcsUj1cgeVPCUZ48dQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Milan Broz <gmazyland@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5f467a08-bb2f-7919-cd91-45933ec47f00@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 21:22:20 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOASepMPZrQaUmL2KTTDk4tEGOypO-xXFcsUj1cgeVPCUZ48dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] License Clarification
List-Id: <dm-crypt.saout.de>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.saout.de/mailman/options/dm-crypt>,
 <mailto:dm-crypt-request@saout.de?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.saout.de/pipermail/dm-crypt/>
List-Post: <mailto:dm-crypt@saout.de>
List-Help: <mailto:dm-crypt-request@saout.de?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt>,
 <mailto:dm-crypt-request@saout.de?subject=subscribe>
To: Nathaniel McCallum <npmccallum@redhat.com>, dm-crypt@saout.de
Cc: "Sorce, Simo" <simo@redhat.com>

The original intention is documented here
http://www.saout.de/pipermail/dm-crypt/2012-December/002992.html

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

Thanks,
Milan

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@saout.de
> http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
>