On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:07:05AM +0300, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
On 29 March 2011 10:53, Steve Langasek steve.langasek@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.
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!