Librbd licensing

Librbd licensing

[Steve Taylor]

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.

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

Re: Librbd licensing

[Sage Weil]

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
> 
> 

Re: Librbd licensing

[Steve Taylor]

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
>>
>>

Re: Librbd licensing

[Loic Dachary]

[-- 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 --]

Re: Librbd licensing

[Steve Taylor]

Fair enough. Thanks for clearing it up. Is this something anyone cares
to fix? I'm personally happy to accept it as is with this email chain
as reference, but I will also be happy to add the "Lesser" and submit
a pull request if you want it. I'm not big on changing other peoples'
copyright headers unless they ask for it though. :-)

Steve

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote:
> 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
>
--
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

Re: Librbd licensing

[Sage Weil]

Ideally the change comes from Josh, who originally put the notice there, 
but I think it shouldn't matter.  We relicensed rbd.cc as LGPL2 a while 
back (it was GPL due to a header we used?) and got confirmations from all 
authors.  It might be worth doing a quick check to make sure there aren't 
committers for the affected headers that we didn't contact earlier.

For reference, the license change commit is 
2206f55761c675b31078dea4e7dd66f2666d7d03.

sage


On Mon, 2 Jun 2014, Steve Taylor wrote:

> Fair enough. Thanks for clearing it up. Is this something anyone cares
> to fix? I'm personally happy to accept it as is with this email chain
> as reference, but I will also be happy to add the "Lesser" and submit
> a pull request if you want it. I'm not big on changing other peoples'
> copyright headers unless they ask for it though. :-)
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote:
> > 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
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Lo?c Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
> >
> --
> 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
> 
> 

Re: Librbd licensing

[Josh Durgin]

On 06/02/2014 10:22 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
> Ideally the change comes from Josh, who originally put the notice there,
> but I think it shouldn't matter.  We relicensed rbd.cc as LGPL2 a while
> back (it was GPL due to a header we used?) and got confirmations from all
> authors.  It might be worth doing a quick check to make sure there aren't
> committers for the affected headers that we didn't contact earlier.

There's one.

Greg, could you confirm that you consent to licensing your changes to
librbd.h and librbd.hpp under LGPL2.1?

I think it's a good idea to fix the typo so it doesn't cause this
confusion again.

Josh

> For reference, the license change commit is
> 2206f55761c675b31078dea4e7dd66f2666d7d03.
>
> sage
>
>
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2014, Steve Taylor wrote:
>
>> Fair enough. Thanks for clearing it up. Is this something anyone cares
>> to fix? I'm personally happy to accept it as is with this email chain
>> as reference, but I will also be happy to add the "Lesser" and submit
>> a pull request if you want it. I'm not big on changing other peoples'
>> copyright headers unless they ask for it though. :-)
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Lo?c Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
>>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>

Re: Librbd licensing

[Gregory Farnum]

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com> wrote:
> On 06/02/2014 10:22 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
>>
>> Ideally the change comes from Josh, who originally put the notice there,
>> but I think it shouldn't matter.  We relicensed rbd.cc as LGPL2 a while
>> back (it was GPL due to a header we used?) and got confirmations from all
>> authors.  It might be worth doing a quick check to make sure there aren't
>> committers for the affected headers that we didn't contact earlier.
>
>
> There's one.
>
> Greg, could you confirm that you consent to licensing your changes to
> librbd.h and librbd.hpp under LGPL2.1?

Definitely not a problem.
-Greg

>
> I think it's a good idea to fix the typo so it doesn't cause this
> confusion again.
>
> Josh