On 7/30/20 1:52 PM, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 06:49:07PM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>>> We'd also need to follow shared library best practices like compiling with
>>> -fvisibility=hidden and marking the API functions explicitly with
>>> __attribute__((visibility("default"))), and setting the 'soname' like
>>> -Wl,-soname=libfsverity.so.0.
>>>
>>> Also, is the GPLv2+ license okay for the use case?
>>
>> Personally I only care about linking it into rpm, which is GPL v2, so
>> from my perspective, that is sufficient. I am also fine making it LGPL,
>> but given it's your code I am stealing, I cannot make that call.
>>
>
> Hi Jes, I'd like to revisit this, as I'm concerned about future use cases where
> software under other licenses (e.g. LGPL, MIT, or Apache 2.0) might want to use
> libfsverity -- especially if libfsverity grows more functionality.
>
> Also, fsverity-utils links to OpenSSL, which some people (e.g. Debian) consider
> to be incompatible with GPLv2.
>
> We think the MIT license (https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT) would offer the
> most flexibility. Are you okay with changing the license of fsverity-utils to
> MIT? If so, I'll send a patch and you can give an Acked-by on it.
>
> Thanks!
>
> - Eric
Hi Eric,
I went back through my patches to make sure I didn't reuse code from
other GPL projects. I don't see anything that looks like it was reused
except from fsverity-utils itself, so it should be fine.
I think it's fair to relax the license so other projects can link to it.
I would prefer we use the LGPL rather than the MIT license though?
CC'ing Chris Mason as well, since he has the auth to ack it on behalf of
the company.
Cheers,
Jes
|