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