On Mon, 2018-03-26 at 14:36 +0200, Martin Wilck wrote: > > The key question is whether we need *L*GPL at all. We only do if we > want to allow prioprietary code to link with our code. Because > libmultipath is no "library" intended for general use, rather a set > of > common code between multipath and multipathd, I don't see a strong > case > for *L*GPL for it. The parts of the code that might be interesting > for > external parties to use are libmpathcmd, libmpathpersist, and > libdmmp, > where the GPLv3 of the latter explicity forbids use by proprietary > code. libmpathcmd doesn't need to link libmultipath, but > libmpathpersist in its current form does. I just realized that libdmmp doesn't link to libmultipath, either, just libmpathcmd. So there's _no_ linking problem here, and _no_ legal problem distributing libdmmp and libmultipath together. I'm sorry for distributing FUD. Soooo, it's actually not so bad, after all, except that we (and external parties) have to realize that the COPYING file doesn't apply to libmultipath as a whole, just to those files that don't carry an explicit copyright notice, and that means very little. Because of the issues raised earlier, libmultipath.so and libmpathpersist.so are effectively under "GPLv2 only" license, and neither under any *L*GPL variant, nor under a "version $x or later" variant. The COPYING file is therefore rather misleading. Martin -- Dr. Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx>, Tel. +49 (0)911 74053 2107 SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
