Re: ACPI builder re-licensing

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>]

On 07/13/2016 10:30 AM, Lars Kurth wrote:
>
> On 13/07/2016 15:22, "Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> On 07/13/2016 09:21 AM, Lars Kurth wrote:
>>> Boris,
>>>
>>> I can't remember how we managed this process the last time round (see
>>> for https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9172431/), but in that case we
>>> already had a patch. As far as I can see, we don't have the complete
>>> patch yet.
>>>
>>> Thus, the question I would have to you is whether you want to prepare
>>> the complete patch first or get the approvals of all stake-holders first?
>> I certainly can (and should) prepare and post the patch but I thought we
>> should first come up with (A) list at the least.
> It's basically in this thread already and is
> - Kouya Shimura <kouya@jp.fujitsu.com>
> - Daniel's old private e-mail address, if still active.
> - Stefan Berger <stefanb@us.ibm.com>
> - Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>
> - Keir <keir@xen.org>
>  
> Possibly Paolo
>
>> OTOH, we can at least
>> review the patch first here on xen-devel without bothering people from
>> that list with revisions. So yes, I will.


Which LGPL version are we using?

Most libxc and all libxl files say it's strictly 2.1: "... version 2.1
only. with the special exception on linking described in file LICENSE"
(with LICENSE file not provided, which I assume meaning that it's
vanilla 2.1).

However, some files in libxc are less restrictive in this regard:
"either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.".

(I will be out tomorrow and won't respond until Friday)

-boris




_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel