From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: What license is multipath-tools under Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:26:03 -0400 Message-ID: <1469726763.2295.20.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <1469616127.6204.9.camel@debian.org> <26bf809d-9e9e-b4ae-9110-a67819246907@gmail.com> <1469724801.17451.27.camel@debian.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6391201060587246551==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1469724801.17451.27.camel@debian.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: rrs@debian.org, Xose Vazquez Perez , "christophe.varoqui@opensvc.com" Cc: device-mapper development List-Id: dm-devel.ids --===============6391201060587246551== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-kI7/HyvZPlCDlIIPQImB" --=-kI7/HyvZPlCDlIIPQImB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2016-07-28 at 22:23 +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > Thanks Xose, for digging this information. But shouldn't this=20 > information go into respective source files? If there's a COPYING file, there's no need for individual files to have a copyright. The licence of the file defaults to whatever COPYING (or LICENCE or some recognizable top level file says). A significant number of Linux Kernel files don't have individual file header copyrigh ts, if you want an example of this. > Recently, at Debconf, I came aware of Fossology [1]. It is a=20 > compliance tool for license, copyright and export control scans. I=20 > have spawned off a job [2] and am curious of the result. But looks=20 > like their server may be having a problem at the moment. >=20 > But it is standard practise in most Free Software projects to define=20 > the licensing proper. And for a project with mixed licenses, it'd be=20 > best to have individual source files mention their license. >=20 It may be a best practice and even practised by some projects, but if Linux doesn't do it, it's hard to say it's standard practice. James > [1] https://www.fossology.org/ > [2] http://52.26.97.143/repo/?mod=3Dshowjobs >=20 >=20 > On Thu, 2016-07-28 at 00:19 +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > > On 07/27/2016 12:42 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > >=20 > > >=20 > > > I just ran some compliance tools on multipath and the results > > > weren't very > > > appealing in regard to licensing and copyright information. > > >=20 > > > The standard COPYING file mentions LGPL v2. > > > On the other hand, the majority of the source code has no license > > > mentioned > > > in > > > its header. Some that do have, mention it as GPLv2, and some as > > > GPLv2+ > >=20 > > "No copyright" or "UNKNOWN" files should be covered by COPYING > > licence(LGPL > > v2). > > Except: > >=20 > > kpartx/ > > It comes from partx(util-linux), and these files are under "GPL v2" > > or > > "GPL v2 or later". Independent binary. > >=20 > >=20 > > libmultipath/prioritizers/ontap.c > > It's "GPL v2". But it's a plugin. ??? > >=20 > >=20 > > libmultipath/checkers/cciss_tur.c > > Source says "GPL v2 or later", and: > > /* > > * This program originally derived from and inspired by > > * Christophe Varoqui's tur.c, part of libchecker. > > */ > > At libmultipath/checkers/tur.c there is no licence, but it's > > derived from > > src/sg_turs.c > > from sg3_utils. And this one is under "GPL v2 or later". But it's a > > plugin. > > ??? > >=20 > >=20 > > libmultipath/memory.c > > libmultipath/memory.h > > libmultipath/parser.c > > libmultipath/parser.h > > libmultipath/vector.c > > libmultipath/vector.h > > These comes from keepalived, and they are under "GPL v2 or later". > >=20 > >=20 > > libmultipath/version.h: > > "GPL v2 or later". > >=20 > >=20 > > libmultipath/file.c > > libmultipath/alias.c > > Source says: > > /* > > * significant parts of this file were taken from iscsi-bindings.c > > of the > > * linux-iscsi project. > > And they are under "GPL v2 or later". > >=20 > >=20 > > libmultipath/uevent.c > > libmultipath/sysfs.c > > These come from udev, and they are "GPL v2". > >=20 > >=20 > > GPL code can not be mixed with LGPL code. So I guess libmultipath/ > > files are > > "GPL v2" ??? > >=20 > >=20 > > multipath/main.c > > Under "GPL v2 or later". It's linked with libmultipath.so and > > libmpathcmd.so. > -- > dm-devel mailing list > dm-devel@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel --=-kI7/HyvZPlCDlIIPQImB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAABCAAGBQJXmkArAAoJEAVr7HOZEZN40fsP/iq869MOYW+TpnCwMEQClaEr HyuSQf3E/pLu5j8wAzJk+hoUxpZxwE/zSgSg1lDp9o427gxlIbiqgvXfgiXYnSE8 fw/Qy+/5VOctDsu+06nlgO305B5IRQbIqyBp2aNRd8Xycwm4QuuTJc0MHIr5q1x3 8jJgnmUe+ceNSmNQnCtMCfBgSykWxrG32+yaDn3uZWLA/B0wFTjRqkMBhbsryUjY 2qLp4KWD8IQPLmNwrjE1lwqBHOIf+j8PA4eivnVr2sMAg853XiwDrylyaJ+OiW+K 8On7I8/tOQvpEJNqojatnJjyTFbO/V2Od4ALorGkAzvyG54vt838fExN1274sPZN j27seTE04txMRKkQe8a8xIs0KkIFQgbRFOQZ8U5yhiBvmWhUzHudRTp0hWk3PzJI nftVjwDcrJvEfKRTGqkowP7tY+JwhLZFTmt5Q+IZMCVcFiZHdJhlVYdZpC4c495o UH8RYmw2pQ2Qg2UOO9iBae5no/UxmW74hf/FyZ6iANo5GpjHMCjqn4cXNLiygQzj iK2rGGj6FFQyXxHqjMaSjGqEfuUdaQFS0zxBfEZEyVp3vXZ9pfFWUQamFGgm7cYs diTicG8nlOJ5OTXbn9zmWk4CdI5UhteTbsI+CNJrKvuxa7u/1Ez00LaeIHXfyGox u3Cx981PHeQ38IowWoBe =ibCR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-kI7/HyvZPlCDlIIPQImB-- --===============6391201060587246551== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline --===============6391201060587246551==--