[task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

[Lewis ANESA]

Follow-up Comment #14, task #16044 (project administration):

Found here :
https://www.quora.com/Does-Glibc-use-GPL-license-Because-I-found-GPL-in-some-source-file-nscd-cache-c
that glibc is :
Over a core of ~15000 files with a million lines of code, only 472 files
belong to compilable code where a copyright and license header are present. In
total among these code files one will find in regards to license references:
36.9% BSD-3-Clause (174 files)
27.8% Public_Domain (131 files)
15.5% GPL (73 files)
10.2% GPL-2.0+ (48 files)
2.1% GPL-2.0 (10 files)
1.5% LGPL (7 files)
1.5% LGPL-3.0+ (7 files)
1.1% GPL-3.0+ (5 files)
1.1% LGPL-2.0 (5 files)
0.8% MIT (4 files)
0.6% BSD (3 files)
0.2% MIT, Public_Domain (1 file)
0.2% GPL-3.0 (1 file)
0.2% BSD-3-Clause, LGPL (1 file)
0.2% BSD, LGPL (1 file)
0.2% LGPL-2.1 (1 file) View 

So glibc's LICENSE is hard to determine.
LICENSE file does not name used licenses,
so I can't search them on https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Bu we can say that GNU Make is released under GNU GPLv3 license and is
obviously, like lots of other GNU's software, using the -and is so license
compatible with- glibc.

Libunwind is delivered under apache V2 and so,
according to https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html,
is GNU GPLv3 compatible.

A part of this dependecy is under expat (MIT) which is also GPLv3 compatible
Another part of this dependecy is under NCSA (University of Illinois Open
Source License) which is also GPLv3 compatible

Copyright lists contributors realesing these dependencies under the licenses I
just listed.

Do I have to list third part licenses in LICENSE file of Ladspa tool kit?

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16044>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.nongnu.org/