From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pierre-marc.fournier@polymtl.ca (Pierre-Marc Fournier) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 08:01:43 -0400 Subject: [ltt-dev] lttng-ust: Inconsistent license info in manual and source code? In-Reply-To: <1865303E0DED764181A9D882DEF65FB65E3D6E8162@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1865303E0DED764181A9D882DEF65FB6521EDABC07@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> <4C64C25D.6000601@polymtl.ca> <1865303E0DED764181A9D882DEF65FB6521EDABC08@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> <1865303E0DED764181A9D882DEF65FB65DD2812229@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> <1865303E0DED764181A9D882DEF65FB65E3D6E8162@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> Message-ID: <4CA47C27.5060400@polymtl.ca> 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