Re: Librbd licensing

[Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>]

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
>>
>>