From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dexuan.cui@intel.com (Cui, Dexuan)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:13:35 +0800
Subject: [ltt-dev] lttng-ust: Inconsistent license info in manual
	and	source code?
In-Reply-To: <1865303E0DED764181A9D882DEF65FB6521EDABC08@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com>
References: <1865303E0DED764181A9D882DEF65FB6521EDABC07@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com>
	<4C64C25D.6000601@polymtl.ca>
	<1865303E0DED764181A9D882DEF65FB6521EDABC08@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Message-ID: <1865303E0DED764181A9D882DEF65FB65DD2812229@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com>

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