[ltt-dev] lttng-ust: Inconsistent license info in manual and source code?

[ltt-dev] lttng-ust: Inconsistent license info in manual and source code?

[Cui, Dexuan]

Hi, in the latest release 0.5 of lttng-ust (http://lttng.org/files/ust/releases/ust-0.5.tar.gz), I found in the source directory, doc/manual/ust.html says ustctl/libustcmd/ustd are licensed as GPL v2, but the source codes of ustctl/libustcmd/ustd have a LGPLv2.1+ header.  I checked git://git.dorsal.polymtl.ca/git/ust.git and it has the same issue.

Could somebody please clarify the inconsistency? Thanks!

-- Dexuan
 

[ltt-dev] lttng-ust: Inconsistent license info in manual and source code?

[Pierre-Marc Fournier]

On 08/12/2010 11:51 PM, Cui, Dexuan wrote:
> Hi, in the latest release 0.5 of lttng-ust (http://lttng.org/files/ust/releases/ust-0.5.tar.gz), I found in the source directory, doc/manual/ust.html says ustctl/libustcmd/ustd are licensed as GPL v2, but the source codes of ustctl/libustcmd/ustd have a LGPLv2.1+ header.  I checked git://git.dorsal.polymtl.ca/git/ust.git and it has the same issue.
>
> Could somebody please clarify the inconsistency? Thanks!

The licenses in the file have priority. The manual needs to be updated.

pmf

[ltt-dev] lttng-ust: Inconsistent license info in manual and source code?

[Cui, Dexuan]

Pierre-Marc Fournier wrote:
> On 08/12/2010 11:51 PM, Cui, Dexuan wrote:
>> Hi, in the latest release 0.5 of lttng-ust
>> (http://lttng.org/files/ust/releases/ust-0.5.tar.gz), I found in the
>> source directory, doc/manual/ust.html says ustctl/libustcmd/ustd are
>> licensed as GPL v2, but the source codes of ustctl/libustcmd/ustd
>> have a LGPLv2.1+ header.  I checked
>> git://git.dorsal.polymtl.ca/git/ust.git and it has the same issue.  
>> 
>> Could somebody please clarify the inconsistency? Thanks!
> 
> The licenses in the file have priority. The manual needs to be
> updated. 
> 
> pmf

Thanks a lot for the quick clarification! :-)

Thanks,
-- Dexuan

[ltt-dev] lttng-ust: Inconsistent license info in manual and source code?

[Cui, Dexuan]

Cui, Dexuan wrote:
> Pierre-Marc Fournier wrote:
>> On 08/12/2010 11:51 PM, Cui, Dexuan wrote:
>>> Hi, in the latest release 0.5 of lttng-ust
>>> (http://lttng.org/files/ust/releases/ust-0.5.tar.gz), I found in the
>>> source directory, doc/manual/ust.html says ustctl/libustcmd/ustd are
>>> licensed as GPL v2, but the source codes of ustctl/libustcmd/ustd
>>> have a LGPLv2.1+ header.  I checked
>>> git://git.dorsal.polymtl.ca/git/ust.git and it has the same issue.
>>> 
>>> Could somebody please clarify the inconsistency? Thanks!
>> 
>> The licenses in the file have priority. The manual needs to be
>> updated. 
>> 
>> pmf
> 
> Thanks a lot for the quick clarification! :-)

Hi, today I checked the release of 0.7 and the latest's ust.git. Looks this inconsistency in manual and source cde is still there?
Do we have a plan to fix it? 

And, the COPYING only mentions "GPLv2 or any later version", but doesn't mention LGPL at all.
And, the files in ust.git/snprintf/ has a BSD license header.
So, what's the "overall" license of lttng-ust -- "LGPL2.1+ & BSD"? 

Could you please clarify my questions? Thanks very much!

Thanks,
 -- Dexuan

[ltt-dev] lttng-ust: Inconsistent license info in manual and source code?

[Nils Carlson]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Cui, Dexuan wrote:

> Cui, Dexuan wrote:
>> Pierre-Marc Fournier wrote:
>>> On 08/12/2010 11:51 PM, Cui, Dexuan wrote:
>>>> Hi, in the latest release 0.5 of lttng-ust
>>>> (http://lttng.org/files/ust/releases/ust-0.5.tar.gz), I found in the
>>>> source directory, doc/manual/ust.html says ustctl/libustcmd/ustd are
>>>> licensed as GPL v2, but the source codes of ustctl/libustcmd/ustd
>>>> have a LGPLv2.1+ header.  I checked
>>>> git://git.dorsal.polymtl.ca/git/ust.git and it has the same issue.
>>>>
>>>> Could somebody please clarify the inconsistency? Thanks!
>>>
>>> The licenses in the file have priority. The manual needs to be
>>> updated.
>>>
>>> pmf
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the quick clarification! :-)
>
> Hi, today I checked the release of 0.7 and the latest's ust.git. Looks this inconsistency in manual and source cde is still there?
> Do we have a plan to fix it?
>
> And, the COPYING only mentions "GPLv2 or any later version", but doesn't mention LGPL at all.
> And, the files in ust.git/snprintf/ has a BSD license header.
> So, what's the "overall" license of lttng-ust -- "LGPL2.1+ & BSD"?
>

LPGPL2.1 for the library parts.

LGPL is more restrictive than BSD so only the specifically BSD licensed 
parts may be used under a BSD license.

I can try to fix the license text in the coming release.

/Nils


> Could you please clarify my questions? Thanks very much!
>
> Thanks,
> -- Dexuan
>
> _______________________________________________
> ltt-dev mailing list
> ltt-dev at lists.casi.polymtl.ca
> http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
>

[ltt-dev] lttng-ust: Inconsistent license info in manual and source code?

[Cui, Dexuan]

Nils Carlson wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Cui, Dexuan wrote:
> 
>> Cui, Dexuan wrote:
>>> Pierre-Marc Fournier wrote:
>>>> On 08/12/2010 11:51 PM, Cui, Dexuan wrote:
>>>>> Hi, in the latest release 0.5 of lttng-ust
>>>>> (http://lttng.org/files/ust/releases/ust-0.5.tar.gz), I found in
>>>>> the source directory, doc/manual/ust.html says
>>>>> ustctl/libustcmd/ustd are licensed as GPL v2, but the source
>>>>> codes of ustctl/libustcmd/ustd have a LGPLv2.1+ header.  I checked
>>>>> git://git.dorsal.polymtl.ca/git/ust.git and it has the same issue.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Could somebody please clarify the inconsistency? Thanks!
>>>> 
>>>> The licenses in the file have priority. The manual needs to be
>>>> updated. 
>>>> 
>>>> pmf
>>> 
>>> Thanks a lot for the quick clarification! :-)
>> 
>> Hi, today I checked the release of 0.7 and the latest's ust.git.
>> Looks this inconsistency in manual and source cde is still there? Do
>> we have a plan to fix it?  
>> 
>> And, the COPYING only mentions "GPLv2 or any later version", but
>> doesn't mention LGPL at all. 
>> And, the files in ust.git/snprintf/ has a BSD license header.
>> So, what's the "overall" license of lttng-ust -- "LGPL2.1+ & BSD"?
>> 
> 
> LPGPL2.1 for the library parts.
> 
> LGPL is more restrictive than BSD so only the specifically BSD
> licensed parts may be used under a BSD license.
> 
> I can try to fix the license text in the coming release.
> 
> /Nils
Hi Nils,
I see. 

And could you also please answer the COPYING question --  "the COPYING only mentions "GPLv2 or any later version", but  doesn't mention LGPL at all"?
Should we also fix the COPYING? I think it should only mention LGPL rather than GPL. Am I correct?

Thanks,
 -- Dexuan

[ltt-dev] lttng-ust: Inconsistent license info in manual and source code?

[Pierre-Marc Fournier]

On 09/30/2010 06:49 AM, Cui, Dexuan wrote:
> Nils Carlson wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Cui, Dexuan wrote:
>>
>>> Cui, Dexuan wrote:
>>>> Pierre-Marc Fournier wrote:
>>>>> On 08/12/2010 11:51 PM, Cui, Dexuan wrote:
>>>>>> Hi, in the latest release 0.5 of lttng-ust
>>>>>> (http://lttng.org/files/ust/releases/ust-0.5.tar.gz), I found in
>>>>>> the source directory, doc/manual/ust.html says
>>>>>> ustctl/libustcmd/ustd are licensed as GPL v2, but the source
>>>>>> codes of ustctl/libustcmd/ustd have a LGPLv2.1+ header.  I checked
>>>>>> git://git.dorsal.polymtl.ca/git/ust.git and it has the same issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could somebody please clarify the inconsistency? Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> The licenses in the file have priority. The manual needs to be
>>>>> updated.
>>>>>
>>>>> pmf
>>>>
>>>> Thanks a lot for the quick clarification! :-)
>>>
>>> Hi, today I checked the release of 0.7 and the latest's ust.git.
>>> Looks this inconsistency in manual and source cde is still there? Do
>>> we have a plan to fix it?
>>>
>>> And, the COPYING only mentions "GPLv2 or any later version", but
>>> doesn't mention LGPL at all.
>>> And, the files in ust.git/snprintf/ has a BSD license header.
>>> So, what's the "overall" license of lttng-ust -- "LGPL2.1+&  BSD"?
>>>
>>
>> LPGPL2.1 for the library parts.
>>
>> LGPL is more restrictive than BSD so only the specifically BSD
>> licensed parts may be used under a BSD license.
>>
>> I can try to fix the license text in the coming release.
>>
>> /Nils
> Hi Nils,
> I see.
>
> And could you also please answer the COPYING question --  "the COPYING only mentions "GPLv2 or any later version", but  doesn't mention LGPL at all"?
> Should we also fix the COPYING? I think it should only mention LGPL rather than GPL. Am I correct?
>

The COPYING file should be fixed. It's indeed confusing.

We already have a lgpl-2.1.txt file. We could add a gpl-2.txt file. 
After that, COPYING could contain information about the license of each 
module, and refer to the specific *.txt files for the license text. If 
would likely become the official source from which the corresponding 
section of the manual would be updated.

pmf