Libraries with NEON backends
markos at genesi-usa.com
Tue Mar 29 08:07:05 UTC 2011
On 29 March 2011 10:53, Steve Langasek <steve.langasek at 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. This
would be easily solved by means of a Provides: field, but I'm unsure if the
differentiation also should include the libz.so filename. 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 :)
I'd love to be corrected if it meant having a NEON-optimized zlib in 2011 :)
> The only relevant requirements in the license (according to
> /usr/share/doc/zlib1g/copyright) are:
> 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
> claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software
> in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be
> appreciated but is not required.
> 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
> misrepresented as being the original software.
Yes, 2 is the problem, I think this was interpreted as having to rename
the package and possibly the .so name.
> Are you looking at a different zlib license than this one?
No, it's the same.
More information about the linaro-dev