On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:21:05PM +0400, Dmitry Mishin wrote: > On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 06:10:19 PM Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > Any pointers ? All I found was > > > > http://www.parallels.com/ptn/download/sdk/ > > > > > > > > and it's quite silent on code availability and Licence for the > > > > libraries. > > > > > > It has a proprietary license and not open sourced now. Is it a problem? > > > > If the license is not LGPLv2+ compatible, then it can't be used > > by libvirt, regardless of whether it is directly linked, or > > dlopened. In other words using 'dlopen' doesn't magically solve > > the license compatibility problem. > Will we solve the issue if libvirt will be statically linked with SDK library > (as Daniel requests) and SDK library itself will be distributed in binary form > under BSD license conditions (which is LGPLv2 compatible)? Yes, linking to a BSD licensed library is fine from a licensing point of view. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list