On 08/26/2016 08:51 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 26.08.16 at 14:13, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote: >> On 08/26/2016 02:54 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 18.07.16 at 16:01, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>> ACPI builder is currently distributed under GPLv2 license. >>>> >>>> We plan to make the builder available to components other >>>> than the hvmloader (which is also GPLv2). Some of these >>>> components (such as libxl) may be distributed under LGPL-2.1 >>>> so that they can be used by non-GPLv2 callers. But this >>>> will not be possible if we incorporate the ACPI builder in >>>> those other components. >>>> >>>> To avoid this problem we are relicensing sources in ACPI >>>> bulder directory to the Lesser GNU Public License (LGPL) >>>> version 2.1 >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> >>>> CC: Kouya Shimura <ko...@jp.fujitsu.com> >>>> CC: Daniel Kiper <dki...@net-space.pl> >>>> CC: Stefan Berger <stef...@us.ibm.com> >>>> CC: Simon Horman <ho...@verge.net.au> >>>> CC: Keir Fraser <k...@xen.org> >>>> CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> >>>> CC: Lars Kurth <lars.ku...@citrix.com> >>> Ian, >>> >>> I think all required acks are in place now (just went through the >>> original thread again), but I think before committing this another >>> pair of eyes double checking would not hurt. Could I ask you to >>> do that? >> We are still missing Citrix and, ahem, Oracle. For the latter we are >> waiting for approval from our legal and it's going rather slow (Konrad >> pinged them yesterday) > Okay, I wrongly thought the Citrix part was already taken care > of. But how can Oracle be still pending when the patch has your > S-o-b?
Apparently license update requires review by Oracle's legal. Especially given that we are relicensing changes made by Virtual Iron and Sun. -boris _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
