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=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED 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 B01B3C4361B for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 12:38:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 872EC23975 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 12:38:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729456AbgLHMi4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Dec 2020 07:38:56 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48626 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726104AbgLHMi4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Dec 2020 07:38:56 -0500 Received: from mail-yb1-xb35.google.com (mail-yb1-xb35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b35]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25B6EC0613D6 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 04:38:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yb1-xb35.google.com with SMTP id w139so7770938ybe.4 for ; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 04:38:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TzUvJTAbaztlMbm5FtUHRnFcHSpCJ6upx1fcqZb5gtg=; b=nFGOBX2o5ZNpC88qH2BgY2zXdg85Vgk+5tHbikuzC3o9Rcg1Xtw68s/PGbX1J1C9qw oqpeRdr0/nr9/OuEygnRr7FL695LJp73In+5FxsXbwjBL9/9TVJQbxs069rifFoXgNI4 4y1DXHHNjCf2uXKdRsccXRgV5yiGwgQ5Lk1xGzmTcWLe4yPiq8TnLJ6aXwRNfIffqbuw r7JgNRaJF2uzu0PSF15jyIra4VPZIAPCUUF7pzdfeVZvyu0OV6NxIACawRwTgmpqGQHl OjaCgyEqQGYQuUnkLvLMoHg/XuXLW41LucziBZ/hR3HHWnNZWKlXc3Xb9STqAbM0Yall rahw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TzUvJTAbaztlMbm5FtUHRnFcHSpCJ6upx1fcqZb5gtg=; b=bIXuqkM2tRswftg2+ENFGS0Cg7K0qd1RS2ACEXysV05a9SEaLztUW50nWAvr0/fsAu CrDaG/7vjlmLxeI4A+POuhviulz7yfLHEfJeVRWw9Np+kIwPjiyvli2T6wfwK10uXent tkYZmaiaLCDZYV1nEPKL28E0znCNyuSfaetsP53fvPWXxb3TtsAGQOY1sQJosueYj47X xaQhIzgGhQjTH2yLMSNIXUtBVkgPxrdbfzta7JBNu0bL6zYyH/5mMKeIjDqTo8orJQ5j up4ZQKm/s5fwDcRpgEop9gzLVH0MVbDSvPkKDh8V0Dz1w3MMc5NvUdPElZ6nJN/ZRU/5 li/w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531V1fD44HSvwrrJbMfJN/xyGmgIHvI4hGiFQka2xxoDCtdn2wdN bJ9u5t7WOpOcjLI9hGd+NRTBwkvcERhPumCupDBTL7yE/hM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw1Vvn0O4AjjuNG520kP9Qi0NvtqTLjDfKyPmfIm+MouTtdiDZnfNfo6mQ6956yRpcImJcfMA8mrV5ClxOw4OA= X-Received: by 2002:a25:3f85:: with SMTP id m127mr11106717yba.184.1607431095278; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 04:38:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Neal Gompa Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 07:37:39 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: btrfs-progs license To: Stefano Babic Cc: Btrfs BTRFS , Omar Sandoval , David Sterba Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:52 AM Stefano Babic wrote: > > Hi, > > I hope I am not OT. I ask about license for btrfs-progs and related > libraries. I would like to use libbtrfsutils in a FOSS project, but this > is licensed under GPLv3 (even not LGPL) and it forbids to use it in > projects where secure boot is used. > Please don't use this phrasing, because it's not true. There is no circumstance where the GNU version 3 licenses (GPL, LGPL, AGPL) are incompatible with secure boot environments. What you're talking about is an additional restriction *you* are imposing in which you don't want to make it possible for the software to be user-serviceable for any purpose. That's not the same thing as "secure boot". > Checking code in btrfs-progs, btrfs is licensed under GPv2 (fine !) and > also libbtrfs. But I read also that libbtrfs is thought to be dropped > from the project. And checking btrfs, this is linked against > libbtrfsutils, making the whole project GPLv3 (and again, not suitable > for many industrial applications in embedded systems). > > Does anybody explain me the conflict in license and if there is a path > for a GPLv2 compliant library ? > I'm not sure there is a conflict, but there are relatively few authors of the libbtrfsutil code, so we could get the license downgraded to LGPLv2+ instead of being LGPLv3+. --=20 =E7=9C=9F=E5=AE=9F=E3=81=AF=E3=81=84=E3=81=A4=E3=82=82=E4=B8=80=E3=81=A4=EF= =BC=81/ Always, there's only one truth!