Libraries with NEON backends
steve.langasek at linaro.org
Tue Mar 29 22:45:10 UTC 2011
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:07:05AM +0300, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
> 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
I don't think this is a correct interpretation of the license. You don't
have to change a package name to "plainly mark" the source as modified;
debian/copyright, changelogs, notices in the source files accomplish this.
This is done for packages all the time, not just for zlib.
> 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 :)
What a shame! I think you could have gone ahead in good conscience :)
> I'd love to be corrected if it meant having a NEON-optimized zlib in 2011 :)
And I don't see any reason we can't go ahead with this now!
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com vorlon at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the linaro-dev