Hello, First of all, sorry for the boring e-mail, nobody likes to deal with licenses but it's an unfortunate thing we have to deal with from time to time.
Thomas Moschny reported some inconsistencies in the way LXC is currently licensed. The bug report is available here: https://github.com/lxc/lxc/issues/36 Basically the way I see it, LXC is made of 4 different bits: - The main library - The language bindings - The binary tools/scripts - The templates In order to make the library easily usable by others, LXC was originally licensed entirely under the LGPL v2.1 and higher and that certainly makes sense for any bit in the main library as well as for the bindings. Most of the tools, scripts and templates followed course and are also under LGPLv2.1+, some are under GPLv2 and that's all fine since they're tools and not libraries. The problem is that we currently have some files that are part of the library or part of bindings which are licensed under the wrong license, namely, they're currently under GPLv2. I believe this was an oversight and that we should get those switched to the proper license immediately. But I'm not simply going to go ahead and do that myself since I'm not the actual copyright holder for those. Instead, I'd like the original/main author of those to confirm it's fine by them and then we can do that. This still means we'll effectively re-license the code of some of our contributors without explicitly asking them about it. As I said, I'm convinced that this isn't a problem since we're just talking about a handful of files and it's always been clear that the LXC library is licensed under LGPLv2.1+. Nevertheless, if anyone contributed to one of those files we're about to re-license and do not wish their contributions re-licensed, please get in touch as soon as possible so we can remove the affected code from the project. The following files will be re-licensed from GPLv2 to LGPLv2.1+: - src/lua-lxc/core.c (Dwight) - src/lxc/lxccontainer.c (Serge) - src/lxc/lxclock.c (Serge) - src/lxc/lxclock.h (Serge) - src/tests/cgpath.c (Serge) - src/tests/containertests.c (Serge) - src/tests/createtest.c (Serge) - src/tests/destroytest.c (Serge) - src/tests/getkeys.c (Serge) - src/tests/get_item.c (Serge) - src/tests/locktests.c (Serge) - src/tests/lxcpath.c (Serge) - src/tests/saveconfig.c (Serge) - src/tests/shutdowntest.c (Serge) - src/tests/startone.c (Serge) - templates/lxc-ubuntu.in (Serge) - templates/lxc-ubuntu-cloud.in (Serge) Any file that currently doesn't contain a licensing header is assumed to be under the LGPLv2.1+ (as specified in COPYING). Additionally, some of the Android compatibility bits under lxc/includes/ are licensed under a two-clause BSD license. To the best of my knowledge, there are no restrictions in linking LGPLv2 code to BSD code. While processing that bug report, I've also noticed some cases where our license headers are out of date (wrong FSF address) or inconsistent (in the form, not the content). I'll be fixing those too before I send the alpha1 pull-request. -- Stéphane Graber Ubuntu developer http://www.ubuntu.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more! Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft technologies and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of step-by-step tutorial videos with LearnDevNow. Subscribe today and save! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58040911&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ Lxc-devel mailing list Lxc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-devel
