From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josh Durgin Subject: Re: Librbd licensing Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 11:00:41 -0700 Message-ID: <538CBBC9.5070600@inktank.com> References: <538CAE14.4060602@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.220.49]:42335 "EHLO mail-pa0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752534AbaFBSAu (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2014 14:00:50 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id fa1so3386751pad.36 for ; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 11:00:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Sage Weil , Steve Taylor , Greg Farnum Cc: Loic Dachary , ceph-devel 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 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 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 >> >>