From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com (Mathieu Desnoyers)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 10:57:02 -0500
Subject: [ltt-dev] trace_clock_update() spinning
In-Reply-To: <20100205154810.GN12001@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org>
References: <4B3F8896E1733D4787DDB0EA1C7FF91F0108CDD1@ukmail.uk.wirelessworld.airvananet.com>
	<20100202194228.GA24026@Krystal>
	<4B3F8896E1733D4787DDB0EA1C7FF91F0108D2E4@ukmail.uk.wirelessworld.airvananet.com>
	<20100205151613.GA4516@Krystal>
	<20100205154810.GN12001@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org>
Message-ID: <20100205155701.GA5264@Krystal>

* Josh Boyer (jwboyer at gmail.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 10:16:13AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >Hi Mike,
> >- Would you agree for me to integrate it in the lttng project and transfer
> >  non-exclusive relicensing rights to the LTTng maintainer ? Basically, the idea
> >  is to release it under dual GPLv2/LGPLv2.1 licenses, but I start to think that
> >  it might be just easier to use the gdb approach for LTTng contributions, where
> >  the project maintainers have the freedom to decide license changes. This way
> >  we would not have to ask permission from everyone if we need to do a license
> >  change for the LTTng project overall.
> 
> That's called copyright assignment, and I think you might want to discuss what
> is really needed from a legal perspective with someone if you wish to go that
> route.  The FSF has paperwork you have to have on-file with them for contributions.
> I would expect something similar is needed (though I am certainly not a lawyer
> and this is not legal advice).
> 
> josh

Thanks for the hint. Well then maybe it's easier to just ask for GPLv2/LGPLv2.1
licensing. I am trying to find out what can be the easiest way to proceed both
for now and for the future.

Thanks,

Mathieu