On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 03:39:14PM +0530, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 11:35 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 11:26:46PM +0530, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
> > > Coming in Ceph-15 (octopus)
> > >
> > > From: LGPL-2.1 and CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GPL-2.0 and BSL-1.0 and BSD-3-Clause
> > > and MIT
> > > To: LGPL-2.1 and LGPL-3.0 and CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GPL-2.0 and BSL-1.0
> > and
> > > BSD-3-Clause and MIT
> >
> > Do you have info on which parts of Ceph are covered by the newly
> > introduced LGPLv3.0 ?
> >
> >
> I'm still waiting for a reply to the email I sent Sage. In the meantime I
> did a cursory inspection of the source and don't see anything new that is
> licensed with LGPL 3.0. (I'm not a lawyer and I did not do an exhaustive
> search.)
>
> What I do see that is new is the top-level license file (i.e. COPYING file)
> has been changed to add "... or LGPL-3..."
>
> Again, I'm not a lawyer, but AFAIK that magic word "or" in the phrase
> "LGPL-2.1 or LGPL-3" should make it acceptable for things like QEMU that
> are GPLv2.0 only.
Thanks for the pointer. I've looked at the commit which made this change
and I'm increasingly concerned that it *will* in fact impact apps like
QEMU which are GPLv2.0 only. Here is the full text:
commit 2f361a6eeebaa0aa2cb79495f108a89a862ef8bd
Author: Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed Jun 6 16:32:53 2018 -0500
relicense LGPL-2.1 code as LGPL-2.1 or LGPL-3.0
The primary motivation to relicense is a desire to integrate with projects
that are licensed under the Apache License version 2.0. Although opinions
vary, there are some who argue the the LGPL-2.1 and Apache-2.0 licenses
are not fully compatible. We would like to avoid the ambiguity and
potential for controversy.
Projects we would like to consume that are Apache-2.0 licensed include
Seastar, OpenSSL (which is in the process of relicensing to Apache-2.0),
and Swagger (swagger.io). Note that some of these are dynamically linked
or consumed via a high-level language and may or may not require a change
to LGPL-3.0, but providing the option for LGPL-3.0 certainly avoids any
uncertainty.
A few other source files are already incorporated into Ceph that claim an
Apache-2.0 license:
src/common/deleter.h
src/common/sstring.h
src/include/cpp-btree
The Ceph developers would further like to provide a license option that is
more modern than the current LGPL-2.1. LGPL-3.0 includes updated,
clarified language around several issues and is widely considered
more modern, superior license.
Signed-off-by: Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxx>
So in summary
- The historical Ceph license is primarily LGPLv2.1-only
- This prevents Ceph from using & linking to Apache 2.0 licensed code
- Changing "LGPLv2.1-only or LGPL-3.0-only" makes Ceph *source*
compatible with Apache 2.0
That's not the end of the story for license compatibiltiy though. The
problem here is the effect on the *combined* work, and ripples to apps
using libraries.
Although the source is dual licensed LGPLv2.1-only or LGPL-3.0-only,
the presence of Apace 2.0 code eliminates the possibility to choose
LGPLv2.1-only for the combined work. The only option left for the
combined work is thus to choose LGPL-3.0-only.
If this only affects Ceph binaries, that change is self-contained at
least, so not a big problem.
If this use of Apache 2.0 code extends to the Ceph *libraries* then this
license change ripples out to affect applications linking to Ceph.
This will make Ceph incompatible with QEMU as QEMU is GPLv2-only as a
combined work.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
