Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] acpi: Re-license ACPI builder files from GPLv2 to LGPLv2.1

[Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 15/07/2016 18:43, "Ian Jackson" <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Boris Ostrovsky writes ("[PATCH RFC] acpi: Re-license ACPI builder files
>from GPLv2 to LGPLv2.1"):
>> ACPI builder is currently distributed under GPLv2 license.
>> 
>> We plan to make the builder available to components other
>> than the hvmloader (which is also GPLv2). Some of these
>> components (such as libxl) may distributed under non-GPLv2
>> licenses and thus we may not be able to link the builder
>> against them.
>
>I would say
>
>  Some of these components (such as libxl) may distributed under
>  LGPL-2.1 so that they can be used by non-GPLv2 callers.  But this
>  will not be possible if we incorporate the ACPI builder in those
>  other components.

Yes, this is better
Assuming this still comes after "ACPI ... hvmloader (which is also GPLv2)."

>
>> The copyright text that I used here is a copy of what libxl uses.
>> It does not include the GNU's last paragraph about where the license
>> can be obtained. Not sure if it is required. I also kept the note
>> about (non-existing) LICENSE file.
>
>I think this is fine.
>
>> I added the notice to mk_dsdt.c which didn't have any. The notice
>> may not be required since mk_dsdt is Xen build tool and is
>> not shipped but I added it for consistency.
>
>The tool does not a licence statement.
>
>> Here is what we might write to companies' reps from whom we are
>> requesting approval:
>> 
>> Xen Project is requesting you assistance in the following matter.
>> 
>> As part of making improvements to Xen hypervisor and its toolstack we
>> would like to make part of existing code (specifically, ACPI builder
>> which currently resides in tools/firmware/hvmloader/acpi of the Xen
>>source
>> tree) available via object linking to a wider range of tools. Currently
>> ACPI builder is licensed under GPL version 2 while some of the tools
>> that we want to link the builder to are distributed under the Lesser
>> GPL license, version 2.1.
>> 
>> More details can be found in
>>   
>>https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-07/msg01367.htm
>>l
>> 
>> You have been identified as representing an organization that
>>potentially
>> holds copyright to the ACPI builder code (either by listing your
>>company as
>> copyright holder explicitly in the sources or by having your company's
>> employee contribute to the code). We are asking you to approve the
>>change
>> that we are proposing. In other words, we are asking you to affirm the
>> following:
>> 
>>   I, <name>, representing <organization>, do not have any objections
>>   to relicensing Xen code (currently residing under
>>   tools/firmware/hvmloader/acpi) from GPLv2 to LGPLv2.1
>
>I would say:
> 
>    I, <name>, representing <organization>, do not have any objections
>    to relicensing the Xen ACPI builder code (currently residing under
>    tools/firmware/hvmloader/acpi) from GPLv2 to LGPLv2.1
>
>to make it specific and avoid people fearing we mean the whole of Xen.

Agreed

>
>> Respectfully,
>> Xen Project
>
>This should be
>
>  Respectfully,
>
>  Lars Kurth (Xen Project Community Manager)
>  Boris Ostrovsky (Oracle)
>  Ian Jackson (Citrix)
>
>and anyone else you can get to sign up :-).  (Assuming we get Lars's
>OK on the text...)

Am fine with it
Lars

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