From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41753 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755275Ab3IIVNw (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Sep 2013 17:13:52 -0400 Message-ID: <522E3A0E.6080504@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 14:13:50 -0700 From: Andy Grover MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org CC: Chris Mason Subject: btrfs.h and btrfs-progs licensing Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi everybody, I'd like it to be possible to have a library that configures btrfs directly instead of using the cmdline tools. (I think Mark Fasheh and David Sterba have already done some work here.) However, as it stands, the kernel's include/uapi/linux/btrfs.h and btrfs-progs are GPLv2, which means that a "libbtrfs" that is based on either of these might also be construed to need to be GPLv2, and any program *using* libbtrfs might also be construed to need to be GPLv2. I don't think this was the intent. I think we'd be better off if we relicense btrfs-progs to LGPLv2, and dual-license the kernel btrfs.h header to GPLv2/LGPLv2 (this may not be strictly necessary, RMS says it isn't[1], but we probably want to be completely clear). This will involve getting the OK from everyone who has contributed to btrfs-progs. Yay git. If someone more closely involved with btrfs dev wanted to spearhead this I'd love it, but am willing to do it too (I *really* want a libbtrfs. :-) Any thoughts? Objections? Regards -- Andy [1] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0301.1/0362.html