Hi, The missing "Lesser" is a nice typo :-) There has never been a GPLv2.1 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Version_2 ) and I guess it helps disambiguate the interpretation. Cheers On 02/06/2014 18:15, Steve Taylor wrote: > Sorry, my previous reply was rejected by the list because it wasn't in > plain text. Let's try again. > > librbd.cc: > /* > * Ceph - scalable distributed file system > * > * Copyright (C) 2011 New Dream Network > * > * This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public > * License version 2.1, as published by the Free Software > * Foundation. See file COPYING. > * > */ > > librbd.h: > /* > * Ceph - scalable distributed file system > * > * Copyright (C) 2011 New Dream Network > * > * This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public > * License version 2.1, as published by the Free Software > * Foundation. See file COPYING. > * > */ > > librbd.hpp: > /* > * Ceph - scalable distributed file system > * > * Copyright (C) 2011 New Dream Network > * > * This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public > * License version 2.1, as published by the Free Software > * Foundation. See file COPYING. > * > */ > > These are the three that I've noticed poking around librbd so far. My > understanding from COPYING is that they should be LGPL, but these > copyright headers obviously state GPL instead. I'm just trying to > understand definitely which it is. :) > > If a change is in order, of course I'll be happy to make the change > myself and submit a pull request if you like. > > Steve > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Steve, >> >> On Fri, 30 May 2014, Steve Taylor wrote: >>> I am working with a company that wants to utilize librbd in a project to >>> interact with Ceph storage. For the purposes of this integration, >>> LGPL-licensed open source code is acceptable, but GPL-licensed code is not. >>> Well, at least not without other changes to the project, which can be >>> accomplished if necessary. >>> >>> The COPYING file distributed with the Ceph source code seems to indicate >>> that librbd would fall under LGPL 2.1, but some of the source files in >>> librbd reference GPL 2.1 in their copyright headers. >> >> Which files? If there are disparities we should correct them. To the best >> of my knowledge everything in librbd is LGPL. >> >> Thanks! >> sage >> >> >>> >>> >From what I have found so far, it appears to me that the sources in >>> question were probably originally LGPL, but were switched to GPL a few >>> years back to comply with FUSE licensing, which is GPL. Is my understanding >>> correct that these librbd source files are now GPL? If so and FUSE is the >>> reason behind it, is it possible to dual-license those files so they could >>> be LGPL when not used with FUSE? >>> >>> I just want to make sure I understand the licensing properly. I apologize >>> if this has been discussed previously. I am new to the list and can't seem >>> to get the archive search feature to work. >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >>> > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
