From: pierre-marc.fournier@polymtl.ca (Pierre-Marc Fournier)
Subject: [ltt-dev] lttng-ust: Inconsistent license info in manual and source code?
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 08:01:43 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CA47C27.5060400@polymtl.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1865303E0DED764181A9D882DEF65FB65E3D6E8162@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com>
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
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-30 12:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-13 3:51 Cui, Dexuan
2010-08-13 3:56 ` Pierre-Marc Fournier
2010-08-13 4:05 ` Cui, Dexuan
2010-09-30 9:13 ` Cui, Dexuan
2010-09-30 10:21 ` Nils Carlson
2010-09-30 10:49 ` Cui, Dexuan
2010-09-30 12:01 ` Pierre-Marc Fournier [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4CA47C27.5060400@polymtl.ca \
--to=pierre-marc.fournier@polymtl.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox