[ClusterLabs Developers] [booth][sbd] GPLv2.1+ clarification request

[Oyvind Albrigtsen]

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 
>> much
>> I've got to say in this matter ;)
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> --
>> 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
> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20160318/1d67624a/attachment.htm>