[linux-elitists] RPM non free?
Thu Apr 8 11:40:04 PDT 2004
Rick Moen said the following on 4/7/04 5:49 PM:
> Quoting Tanner Lovelace (email@example.com):
>>Or didn't do their homework.
> This would, if correct and relevant, be an example of what I described
> as "a misunderstanding".
Yes, but a specific type of misunderstanding.
> I'm generally willing to speak only to what I've determined from my own
> examination or sources I trust. For whatever it's worth, the version of
> the rpm utility I've seen most recently (4.0.4) is dual-licensed
> GPL/LGPL and has a list of dynamic dependencies that include matching
> versions of librpm, librpmio, and librpmdb, but nothing proclaiming
> itself to be libelf.
It took me less than 10 minutes of looking through current sources to
determine that there isn't a license problem. You have the ability
to do the same thing and figure it out for yourself.
> How that accords with your account I have no idea, but, more
> fundamentally, don't really care: I'd actually like to hear what
> exactly Joey Hess had in mind when he filed that bug report, and...
> <gazing> ...you just don't look a whole lot like Joey, kiddo.
And I never claimed to be. I do, however, claim to have researched
the purported licensing problem and found the argument wanting. If
you don't wish to listen to me, that's your perogative. You're
welcome to go do the research yourself. Current versions of
elfutils and rpm can be found at
If you don't have rpm, you can convert it to a cpio archive using
this handy perl script I happened to find on google:
I too would like to hear Joey's side of the story.
Tanner Lovelace | Have we sent the "Don't shoot, we're pathetic"
firstname.lastname@example.org | transmission yet? - Commander John Crichton
More information about the linux-elitists