From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dexuan.cui@intel.com (Cui, Dexuan) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:49:19 +0800 Subject: [ltt-dev] lttng-ust: Inconsistent license info in manual and source code? In-Reply-To: References: <1865303E0DED764181A9D882DEF65FB6521EDABC07@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> <4C64C25D.6000601@polymtl.ca> <1865303E0DED764181A9D882DEF65FB6521EDABC08@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> <1865303E0DED764181A9D882DEF65FB65DD2812229@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> Message-ID: <1865303E0DED764181A9D882DEF65FB65E3D6E8162@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> 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