Re: btrfs-progs license

[Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de>]

Hi David,

On 14.01.21 19:47, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 01:03:04PM +0100, Stefano Babic wrote:
>> I read this, thanks.
>>
>> I was quite confused about the license for libbtrfsutil due to both
>> "COPYING" and "COPYING.LESSER" in the library path. COPYING reports
>> GPLv3. But headers in file set LGPLv3, sure, and btrfs.h is GPLv2.
>>
>>
>>> I'd like to understand what's the problem with LGPLv3 before we'd
>>> consider switching to LGPLv2, which I'd rather not do.
>>>
>>
>> Please forgive me ig I am not correct because I am just a developer and
>> not a lawyer.
>>
>> The question rised already when QT switched from LGPv2 to LGPLv3, and
>> after the switch what companies should do to be license compliant. Based
>> on information given by qt.io and from lawyers (I find again at least
>> this link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSYDWnsfWUk), it is possible
>> to link even close source SW to libraries, but to avoid the known
>> "tivoization", the manufacturer or user of a library must provide
>> instruction to replace the running code. This is an issue for embedded
>> devices, specially in case the device is closed with keys by the
>> manufacturer to avoid attacks or replacement with malware - for example,
>> medical devices. This means that such a keys to be licence compliant
>> (anyone please correct me if I am wrong) must be provided, making the
>> keys itself without sense. The issue does not happen with LGPv2.1, and
>> this is the reason why many manufacturers are strictly checking to not
>> have (L)GPLv3 code on their device.
> 
> I haven't forgotten about this, but haven't researched that enough to
> make the decision.

;-)


> I need to do the 5.10 release and that will be
> without change to the license.

Of course.

> There are no new changes to libbtrfsutil
> so the number of people who'd need to agree with the potential
> relicensing remains the same.
>

That's fine.

In my understanding, current licensing for btrf-progs could be 
problematic. It is declared GPLv2 but it links libbtrfutils, and GPLv2 
is not compatible according to FSF to (L)GPLv3. If libbtrfsutil becomes 
LGPLv2.1, all conflicts are resolved ;-).

Best regards,
Stefano


-- 
=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: sbabic@denx.de
=====================================================================