Re: [Xen-devel] ACPI builder re-licensing

[Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 14/07/2016 17:48, "Ian Jackson" <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Lars Kurth writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] ACPI builder re-licensing"):
>> I think we should pick a specific version, because the COPYING file in
>>xen.git states - although not very clearly - to pick a specific license
>>with a specific version. Given that libxc/libxl is intended to be LGPL
>>2.1, we should go for 2.1.
>
>My personal view is that LGPLv2.1+ is better because it's more
>flexible - less of a hostage to the future.  But the existing
>libraries are LGPLv2.1 and without a community decision to start
>moving to LGPLv2.1+ I think it's wrong to have files with that licence
>header.

That was the point I was trying to make: the libraries are LGPLv2.1, and
the instances where the headers say "... either version 2.1 of the
License, or (at your option) any later version" were mistake that were
made unintentionally, as the author did not delete "(at your option)".

Thanks for clarifying.

>> It may also make sense to start using SPDX License Identifiers (see
>>http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Technical_Team/SPDX_Meta_Tags#Tag_Format)
>> 
>> alongside the (c) notice for files which do not use GPLv2, as it
>>reduces the scope for mistakes and increases the chances of mistakes
>>being picked up by reviewers.
>
>I don't agree with this.  This ends up stating the same information in
>another way which gives more scope for inconsistency and errors.  Eg,
>you could write a GPLv2+ copyright notice but a the LGPL-2.1-only SPDX
>ID.  And then what would it mean ?
>
>But we do not need to settle that question now.

Agreed, we don't have to settle this here and now. I guess I will need to
do a bit more groundwork/thinking on this.

>> We have a similar issue with some GPLv2 files in Xen, where
>>contributors appear to have forgotten to delete the "or (at your option)
>>any later version", in some files by mistake.
>
>Likewise we should avoid opening this can of worms as part of what
>Boris is trying to do here.

Agreed. I was just trying to provide some context. I am not trying to open
this can of worms here.

>So in summary I think Boris should ask people whether they are happy
>to relicence from GPLv2-only to LGPLv2.1-only.

Agreed. Sorry for being a little off-topic. I didn't mean to hijack the
thread.

Lars

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel