lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Relicensing tracepoints and markers to Dual LGPL v2.1/GPL v2,headers to Dual BSD/GPL

* GeunSik Lim <leemgs1@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Zhaolei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > * From: "Wu Fengguang" <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: Relicensing tracepoints and markers to Dual LGPL v2.1/GPL v2,headers to Dual BSD/GPL
> >
> >
> >> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 05:03:52AM +0800, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > (updated email for Jesper Juhl)
> >>> >
> >>> > * Mathieu Desnoyers (mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca) wrote:
> >>> > > Hi,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I would like to re-license the tracepoint.c/marker.c files from GPL to:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > * Dual LGPL v2.1/GPL v2 license.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > And re-license tracepoint.h/marker.h to:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > * Dual BSD/GPL v2 license.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > The goal is to allow sharing code between the kernel tracer and UST
> >>> > > (User-Space Tracer) project, which is a LGPL v2.1 library. Tracepoint
> >>> > > and marker headers might need to be included by proprietary or BSD
> >>> > > applications, hence the dual BSD/GPL v2 license for these two.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I currently have the OK from Kosaki Motohiro for Fujitsu contributions,
> >>> > > which includes Zhao Lei and Lai Jiangshan.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > The missing approvals for Dual LGPL v2.1/GPL v2 relicensing are:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > For tracepoint.c:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinderrajput@gmail.com>
> >>> > >
> >>> > > For marker.c:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>
> >>> > > Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
> >>> > > Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
> >>> >
> >>> > Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> I don't think I have enough significant changes in there to actually
> >>> require my approval for relicensing, but since you ask; I personally
> >>> do not have a problem with that file being Dual LGPL v2.1/GPL v2
> >>> licensed.
> >>
> >> Me too.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Fengguang
> >
> > Me too.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Zhaolei
>
> Sorry for the late reply. Why do we need a different license to GPLV2
> sources that contributors submitted.? As Mathieu mentioned, I think
> that GPLV2 based some sources needs to be relicense to trace
> non-GPL applications
> for some developers and some companies.
>
> In real, Some open source like QT, MySQL is licensed using dual
> license for business strategy. tracepoint.c/marker.c file is GPLv2
> currently.
>
> Can we re-distribute with dual license (e.g: bsd/gplv2 or lgpl
> 2.1/gplv2) about some source of linux kernel source? I think that
> linux kernel source is GPLv2 only. Frankly speaking, I am not know
> exactly about legal issues of your questions.

Yes, the legality of such relicensing is questionable as that code was
never developed outside of the kernel but as part of the kernel.

But i also disagree with it on a technical level: code duplication is
_bad_. Why does the code have to be duplicated in user-space like that?
I'd like Linux tracing code to be in the kernel repo. Why isnt this done
properly, as part of the kernel project - to make sure it all stays in
sync?

So for those two grounds i cannot give my permission for this
relicensing, sorry.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-26 08:33    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans