[patch] support partiton labels/uuids of common filesystems

[Joe Shaw]

On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 19:14 +0200, David Zeuthen wrote:
> I see that the code is licensed under the GPL which, in principle, is
> okay since HAL is licensed under both the GPL and AFL 2.0, and we
> already got some code that is GPL, though only for the Linux 2.6
> backend. (I don't really want GPL-only code in the generic parts of the
> HAL daemon)
>
> An interesting, and important, question is whether applications using
> HAL (through either D-BUS or libhal (libhal is strictly AFL2.0/GPL like
> D-BUS)) needs to be GPL since we got GPL-only code in a single backend?
> 
> My interpretation of the GPL says 'no', but IANAL. Anyone got some more
> profound insight on this issue?

My interpretation is that if libhal is GPL and the applications that
link against it choose GPL, then those applications must also be GPL.
But it's not an issue if they're strictly using the D-BUS API, since
that goes across process boundaries.

As for the daemon, since nothing external is linking against it, it's
not a big deal if portions of it are GPL-only.

On a related note, are there plans to relicense away from the AFL 2.0?
I know that Novell and probably also Red Hat will not be able to ship
the software as long as that's true.  (The patent clauses are simply too
strong)

Joe


_______________________________________________
hal mailing list
hal at freedesktop.org
http://freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/hal