Ideally the change comes from Josh, who originally put the notice there, but I think it shouldn't matter. We relicensed rbd.cc as LGPL2 a while back (it was GPL due to a header we used?) and got confirmations from all authors. It might be worth doing a quick check to make sure there aren't committers for the affected headers that we didn't contact earlier. For reference, the license change commit is 2206f55761c675b31078dea4e7dd66f2666d7d03. sage On Mon, 2 Jun 2014, Steve Taylor wrote: > Fair enough. Thanks for clearing it up. Is this something anyone cares > to fix? I'm personally happy to accept it as is with this email chain > as reference, but I will also be happy to add the "Lesser" and submit > a pull request if you want it. I'm not big on changing other peoples' > copyright headers unless they ask for it though. :-) > > Steve > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 > >> > > > > -- > > Lo?c Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre > > > -- > 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
