[ClusterLabs Developers] [booth][sbd] GPLv2.1+ clarification request
oalbrigt at redhat.com
Fri Mar 18 04:47:12 EDT 2016
On 17/03/16 22:05, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> On 18 Mar 2016, at 5:23 AM, Philipp Marek <philipp.marek at linbit.com
>> <mailto:philipp.marek at linbit.com>> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 06:47:37PM +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>> during latest reviews of packages building on core cluster
>>> infrastructure, it turned out there is a frequented (viral?) issue
>>> with source files declaring unusual licence: GPLv2.1+.
>>> Affected packages breakdown is at the bottom, including
>>> (possibly non-exhaustive) contributors that knowingly or unknowingly
>>> contributed under that file-local license.
>>> Now, it is highly questionable what was asserted by this license
>>> reference by particular contributors. The fact is that such a license
>>> does not exist. So the logical implication and view of the situation
>>> is that affected files are effectively licensed under GPLv3+.
>>> The other possible view is that it's actually a typo arising from
>>> LGPL2.1 vs. GPLv2 confusion, and then again it's unclear which one
>>> should apply.
>>> Therefore I would like to start moving towards resolution of this
>>> issue by soliciting feedback amongst affected contributors (CC'd)
>>> which direction is preferred:
>>> 1. settle down on GPLv2+ (or LGPL2.1+), which will likely require
>>> whole relicensing process, i.e., collecting sign-offs on this by all
>>> contributors in question
>>> 2. clarify that indeed GPLv3+ was meant and adjust the respective
>>> clauses in the source code
>>> 3. keep the status quo, leave it in the shadow zone allowing for
>>> ambiguous interpretations that may leave potential contributors
>>> away from the project(s)
>>> Apparently, both affected packages, booth and sbd, can choose its
>>> own direction independently of the other package.
>> I'm okay with both, with a slight preference to 2 (moving to GPLv3+).
> Please no, anything but v3
IMO the GPLv2.1+ suggests that parts of the code could be e.g. GPLv3
depending on what the author of specific parts of the code decides, so I
think the question is should it be GPLv2 or LGPL2.1.
>> My (brief) look at the header lines via "git blame" says
>> commit 54dc3dc2be33cd977866ce63d8cc74934d21405d
>> Author: Jiaju Zhang <jjzhang at suse.de <mailto:jjzhang at suse.de>>
>> Date: Wed Aug 24 12:07:22 2011 +0800
>> Initial check-in of the Booth Cluster Ticket Manager.
>> so it predates my contributions by quite some time - I'm not sure how
>> I've got to say in this matter ;)
>> Philipp Marek
>> LINBIT | Keeping the Digital World Running
>> DRBD - Heartbeat - Corosync - Pacemaker
>> DRBD® and LINBIT® are registered trademarks of LINBIT, Austria.
> Developers mailing list
> Developers at clusterlabs.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Developers