Re: Librbd licensing

[Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3826 bytes --]

Hi,

The missing "Lesser" is a nice typo :-) There has never been a GPLv2.1 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Version_2 ) and I guess it helps disambiguate the interpretation.

Cheers

On 02/06/2014 18:15, Steve Taylor wrote:
> Sorry, my previous reply was rejected by the list because it wasn't in
> plain text. Let's try again.
> 
> librbd.cc:
> /*
>  * Ceph - scalable distributed file system
>  *
>  * Copyright (C) 2011 New Dream Network
>  *
>  * This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>  * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public
>  * License version 2.1, as published by the Free Software
>  * Foundation.  See file COPYING.
>  *
>  */
> 
> librbd.h:
> /*
>  * Ceph - scalable distributed file system
>  *
>  * Copyright (C) 2011 New Dream Network
>  *
>  * This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>  * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public
>  * License version 2.1, as published by the Free Software
>  * Foundation.  See file COPYING.
>  *
>  */
> 
> librbd.hpp:
> /*
>  * Ceph - scalable distributed file system
>  *
>  * Copyright (C) 2011 New Dream Network
>  *
>  * This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>  * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public
>  * License version 2.1, as published by the Free Software
>  * Foundation.  See file COPYING.
>  *
>  */
> 
> These are the three that I've noticed poking around librbd so far. My
> understanding from COPYING is that they should be LGPL, but these
> copyright headers obviously state GPL instead. I'm just trying to
> understand definitely which it is. :)
> 
> If a change is in order, of course I'll be happy to make the change
> myself and submit a pull request if you like.
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Sage Weil <sage@inktank.com> wrote:
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> On Fri, 30 May 2014, Steve Taylor wrote:
>>> I am working with a company that wants to utilize librbd in a project to
>>> interact with Ceph storage. For the purposes of this integration,
>>> LGPL-licensed open source code is acceptable, but GPL-licensed code is not.
>>> Well, at least not without other changes to the project, which can be
>>> accomplished if necessary.
>>>
>>> The COPYING file distributed with the Ceph source code seems to indicate
>>> that librbd would fall under LGPL 2.1, but some of the source files in
>>> librbd reference GPL 2.1 in their copyright headers.
>>
>> Which files?  If there are disparities we should correct them. To the best
>> of my knowledge everything in librbd is LGPL.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> sage
>>
>>
>>>
>>> >From what I have found so far, it appears to me that the sources in
>>> question were probably originally LGPL, but were switched to GPL a few
>>> years back to comply with FUSE licensing, which is GPL. Is my understanding
>>> correct that these librbd source files are now GPL? If so and FUSE is the
>>> reason behind it, is it possible to dual-license those files so they could
>>> be LGPL when not used with FUSE?
>>>
>>> I just want to make sure I understand the licensing properly. I apologize
>>> if this has been discussed previously. I am new to the list and can't seem
>>> to get the archive search feature to work.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>>>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 263 bytes --]