Sorry it took a while, but here's the list (this does not include files with the autoconf exception):
asequencer.h aserver.c asoundef.h asound_fm.h asound.h attributes.m4 (autoconf files) emu10k1.h hdsp.h latency.c oldapi.c playmidi1.c sb16_csp.h sndop-mixer.alisp sndo-mixer.alisp
The source code distribution of the package we reviewed does not seem to include the hdspm.h file you refer to below nor the UCM files. Does that mean the distribution is in some way "broken"?
Ours did include also the sndop-mixer files which seem to be licensed under the GPL as well (although at least one of them does not necessarily warrant copyright protection as it is just a few lines).
You made some generic comments in your email about why the GPL licensing is not an issue. If you have the time and the interest (there is obviously no obligation), I'd wish to take that a bit further into a file specific analysis (as we need certainty on a file level to be able to see there is no risk). For example, you say that aserver is "separate". Does that mean it is not shipped with the Alsa library? The impression I got from another response to my earlier post was that it is a legacy technology but still shipped with the library. If that's the case, I could not simply say that there are no GPL issues without further information on how this legacy tech is used. I need to do a similar file-based analysis for the other files as well to make sure there are no issues.
Just to re-emphasise something. My goal here is simply to produce an opinion on whether the licensing of a larger software package (which includes the alsa library) is properly managed - not to accuse anyone of anything. This process however requires quite a lot of digging into technical implementations and I thus appreciate the effort you folks have already put into helping me on this.
- Ossi
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Clemens Ladisch clemens@ladisch.dewrote:
Ossi Niiranen wrote:
We recently performed a licensing audit of a larger software project incorporating the Alsa library 1.0.19. One issue we identified was that although the Alsa library purported to state that the library was licensed under the LGPL, there were still several files with third party copyright holders that indicated in their header that the file in question was licensed under the GPL.
$ grep -rl 'GNU General' alsa-lib/ alsa-lib/COPYING alsa-lib/aserver/COPYING alsa-lib/aserver/aserver.c alsa-lib/include/sound/asequencer.h alsa-lib/include/sound/asound.h alsa-lib/include/sound/asound_fm.h alsa-lib/include/sound/asoundef.h alsa-lib/include/sound/emu10k1.h alsa-lib/include/sound/hdsp.h alsa-lib/include/sound/hdspm.h alsa-lib/include/sound/sb16_csp.h alsa-lib/m4/attributes.m4 alsa-lib/src/ucm/main.c alsa-lib/src/ucm/parser.c alsa-lib/src/ucm/ucm_local.h alsa-lib/src/ucm/utils.c alsa-lib/test/latency.c alsa-lib/test/oldapi.c alsa-lib/test/playmidi1.c
The aserver tool and the tests are separate and not part of the library itself; the UCM stuff is actually LGPL-licensed and mentions the GPL only in "You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License ...".
Most files in include/sound/ are just copies of the kernel headers.
Is there any specific file that you think would make the resulting library not LGPL?
The information contained in this e-mail is privileged ...
This e-mail contains public information intended for any subscriber of this mailing list and for anybody else who bothers to read it; it will be copied, disclosed and distributed to the public. If you think you are not the intended recipient, please commit suicide immediately. These terms apply also to any e-mails quoted in, referenced from, or answering this e-mail, and supersede any confidentiality notices in those e-mails. Additionally, confidentiality notices in those e-mails will incur legal processing fees of $42 per line; you have agreed to this by reading this confidentiality notice.
Regards, Clemens