<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">Hey Stéphane,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I realized that Go bindings are licensed as GPLv2. I've no objection to re-licensing them with LGPL v2.1 but wanted to clarify it with you first. Should I go ahead and change the license or is it ok to stay with GPLv2?</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Best,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Stéphane Graber <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stgraber@ubuntu.com" target="_blank">stgraber@ubuntu.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello,<br>
<br>
First of all, sorry for the boring e-mail, nobody likes to deal with<br>
licenses but it's an unfortunate thing we have to deal with from time to<br>
time.<br>
<br>
Thomas Moschny reported some inconsistencies in the way LXC is currently<br>
licensed.<br>
The bug report is available here: <a href="https://github.com/lxc/lxc/issues/36" target="_blank">https://github.com/lxc/lxc/issues/36</a><br>
<br>
<br>
Basically the way I see it, LXC is made of 4 different bits:<br>
- The main library<br>
- The language bindings<br>
- The binary tools/scripts<br>
- The templates<br>
<br>
In order to make the library easily usable by others, LXC was originally<br>
licensed entirely under the LGPL v2.1 and higher and that certainly<br>
makes sense for any bit in the main library as well as for the bindings.<br>
<br>
Most of the tools, scripts and templates followed course and are also<br>
under LGPLv2.1+, some are under GPLv2 and that's all fine since they're<br>
tools and not libraries.<br>
<br>
<br>
The problem is that we currently have some files that are part of the<br>
library or part of bindings which are licensed under the wrong license,<br>
namely, they're currently under GPLv2.<br>
<br>
I believe this was an oversight and that we should get those switched to<br>
the proper license immediately. But I'm not simply going to go ahead and<br>
do that myself since I'm not the actual copyright holder for those.<br>
<br>
Instead, I'd like the original/main author of those to confirm it's fine<br>
by them and then we can do that.<br>
<br>
<br>
This still means we'll effectively re-license the code of some of our<br>
contributors without explicitly asking them about it. As I said, I'm<br>
convinced that this isn't a problem since we're just talking about a<br>
handful of files and it's always been clear that the LXC library is<br>
licensed under LGPLv2.1+.<br>
<br>
Nevertheless, if anyone contributed to one of those files we're about to<br>
re-license and do not wish their contributions re-licensed, please get<br>
in touch as soon as possible so we can remove the affected code from the<br>
project.<br>
<br>
<br>
The following files will be re-licensed from GPLv2 to LGPLv2.1+:<br>
- src/lua-lxc/core.c (Dwight)<br>
- src/lxc/lxccontainer.c (Serge)<br>
- src/lxc/lxclock.c (Serge)<br>
- src/lxc/lxclock.h (Serge)<br>
- src/tests/cgpath.c (Serge)<br>
- src/tests/containertests.c (Serge)<br>
- src/tests/createtest.c (Serge)<br>
- src/tests/destroytest.c (Serge)<br>
- src/tests/getkeys.c (Serge)<br>
- src/tests/get_item.c (Serge)<br>
- src/tests/locktests.c (Serge)<br>
- src/tests/lxcpath.c (Serge)<br>
- src/tests/saveconfig.c (Serge)<br>
- src/tests/shutdowntest.c (Serge)<br>
- src/tests/startone.c (Serge)<br>
- templates/<a href="http://lxc-ubuntu.in" target="_blank">lxc-ubuntu.in</a> (Serge)<br>
- templates/<a href="http://lxc-ubuntu-cloud.in" target="_blank">lxc-ubuntu-cloud.in</a> (Serge)<br>
<br>
Any file that currently doesn't contain a licensing header is assumed to<br>
be under the LGPLv2.1+ (as specified in COPYING).<br>
<br>
<br>
Additionally, some of the Android compatibility bits under lxc/includes/<br>
are licensed under a two-clause BSD license. To the best of my<br>
knowledge, there are no restrictions in linking LGPLv2 code to BSD code.<br>
<br>
<br>
While processing that bug report, I've also noticed some cases where our<br>
license headers are out of date (wrong FSF address) or inconsistent (in<br>
the form, not the content). I'll be fixing those too before I send the<br>
alpha1 pull-request.<br>
<span class=""><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Stéphane Graber<br>
Ubuntu developer<br>
<a href="http://www.ubuntu.com" target="_blank">http://www.ubuntu.com</a><br>
</font></span><br>------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more!<br>
Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft technologies<br>
and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of step-by-step<br>
tutorial videos with LearnDevNow. Subscribe today and save!<br>
<a href="http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58040911&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk" target="_blank">http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58040911&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lxc-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lxc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net">Lxc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-devel" target="_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-devel</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>S.Çağlar Onur <<a href="mailto:caglar@10ur.org">caglar@10ur.org</a>>
</div></div>