From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C1EC433E0 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 20:01:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA74E23117 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 20:01:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730398AbhANUBH (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jan 2021 15:01:07 -0500 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.9]:46157 "EHLO mail-out.m-online.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726459AbhANUBH (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jan 2021 15:01:07 -0500 Received: from frontend01.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.182]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DGwCL5kHQz1qs3X; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 21:00:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (dynscan1.mnet-online.de [192.168.6.70]) by mail.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DGwCL5BSSz1tYWf; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 21:00:14 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mnet-online.de Received: from mail.mnet-online.de ([192.168.8.182]) by localhost (dynscan1.mail.m-online.net [192.168.6.70]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id drDcm9R6_Qk2; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 21:00:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from babic.homelinux.org (host-88-217-136-221.customer.m-online.net [88.217.136.221]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 21:00:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (mail.babic.homelinux.org [127.0.0.1]) by babic.homelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAEF245407BC; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 21:00:12 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at babic.homelinux.org Received: from babic.homelinux.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.babic.homelinux.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aUXeC7-4VgEh; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 21:00:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.178.47] (stefano-MacBookPro.fritz.box [192.168.178.47]) by babic.homelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC3FD45404D8; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 21:00:09 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: btrfs-progs license To: dsterba@suse.cz, Stefano Babic , Omar Sandoval , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, David Sterba References: <20201210112742.GC6430@twin.jikos.cz> <7f16d12b-c420-86f1-2cb5-ece52bec6a2f@denx.de> <20210114184706.GD6430@twin.jikos.cz> From: Stefano Babic Message-ID: <7e6b258f-c3b4-32e7-eac5-8ee1b2611364@denx.de> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 21:00:09 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210114184706.GD6430@twin.jikos.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org 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 =====================================================================