libxenvchan license (lGPLv2.1) and xen/include/public/COPYING license?

libxenvchan license (lGPLv2.1) and xen/include/public/COPYING license?

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

Hey!

I picked the list of people on this email from the git log on tools/misc/libvchan/
(albeit this is about xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h).

The problem is that the 'COPYING' file in the root directory of Xen source 
says:

"                                                                                  
Licensing Exceptions (the relaxed BSD-style license)                               
----------------------------------------------------                               
                                                                                   
For the convenience of users and those who are porting OSes to run as              
Xen guests, certain files in this repository are not subject to the                
GPL when distributed separately or included in software packages                   
outside this repository."

The libxenvchan.h header file is an Lesser GPLv2.1. Which would
imply that one could ignore the giant @section LICENSE in the libxenvchan.h
and treat it as non-GPL...

But to make the matters more complicated the ./COPYING files continues
with:

"Instead we specify a much more relaxed                    
BSD-style license. Affected files include the Xen interface headers                
(xen/include/public/COPYING), MiniOS (extras/mini-os) and various                  
drivers, support functions and header files within Xen-aware Linux                 
source trees.  In all such cases, license terms are stated at the top              
of the file or in a COPYING file in the same directory. Note that                  
_any_ file that is modified and then distributed within a Linux kernel             
is still subject to the GNU GPL.                      "

Great, so if I break this up:

 a) "Xen interface headers (xen/include/public/COPYING),"
 b) "MiniOS (..) and various drivers,"
 c) "support functions and header files with Xen-aware Linux
     source trees."

Well, libxenvchan is a).

What?

Yes, if I look in xen/include/public/COPYING it says:

"
XEN NOTICE
==========

This copyright applies to all files within this subdirectory and its
subdirectories:
  include/public/*.h
  include/public/hvm/*.h
  include/public/io/*.h

The intention is that these files can be freely copied into the source
tree of an operating system when porting that OS to run on Xen. Doing
so does *not* cause the OS to become subject to the terms of the GPL
"

and libxenvchan.h is in ./xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h

Also it is in FreeBSD (source tree): ./sys/xen/interface/io/libxenvchan.h

That looks to be an oversigh. The commit that introduced the file is:
commit 1a16a3351ff2f2cf9f0cc0a27c89a0652eb8dfb4
Author: Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>
Date:   Thu Oct 6 19:44:40 2011 +0100

    libvchan: interdomain communications library

As such I was wondering if the folks who wrote/checked the file in
could weight in on what their intention was in regards to this file?

Thanks!

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: libxenvchan license (lGPLv2.1) and xen/include/public/COPYING license?

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 05:36:23PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> Hey!

+CC Lars.
> 
> I picked the list of people on this email from the git log on tools/misc/libvchan/
> (albeit this is about xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h).
> 
> The problem is that the 'COPYING' file in the root directory of Xen source 
> says:
> 
> "                                                                                  
> Licensing Exceptions (the relaxed BSD-style license)                               
> ----------------------------------------------------                               
>                                                                                    
> For the convenience of users and those who are porting OSes to run as              
> Xen guests, certain files in this repository are not subject to the                
> GPL when distributed separately or included in software packages                   
> outside this repository."
> 
> The libxenvchan.h header file is an Lesser GPLv2.1. Which would
> imply that one could ignore the giant @section LICENSE in the libxenvchan.h
> and treat it as non-GPL...
> 
> But to make the matters more complicated the ./COPYING files continues
> with:
> 
> "Instead we specify a much more relaxed                    
> BSD-style license. Affected files include the Xen interface headers                
> (xen/include/public/COPYING), MiniOS (extras/mini-os) and various                  
> drivers, support functions and header files within Xen-aware Linux                 
> source trees.  In all such cases, license terms are stated at the top              
> of the file or in a COPYING file in the same directory. Note that                  
> _any_ file that is modified and then distributed within a Linux kernel             
> is still subject to the GNU GPL.                      "
> 
> Great, so if I break this up:
> 
>  a) "Xen interface headers (xen/include/public/COPYING),"
>  b) "MiniOS (..) and various drivers,"
>  c) "support functions and header files with Xen-aware Linux
>      source trees."
> 
> Well, libxenvchan is a).
> 
> What?
> 
> Yes, if I look in xen/include/public/COPYING it says:
> 
> "
> XEN NOTICE
> ==========
> 
> This copyright applies to all files within this subdirectory and its
> subdirectories:
>   include/public/*.h
>   include/public/hvm/*.h
>   include/public/io/*.h
> 
> The intention is that these files can be freely copied into the source
> tree of an operating system when porting that OS to run on Xen. Doing
> so does *not* cause the OS to become subject to the terms of the GPL
> "
> 
> and libxenvchan.h is in ./xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h
> 
> Also it is in FreeBSD (source tree): ./sys/xen/interface/io/libxenvchan.h
> 
> That looks to be an oversigh. The commit that introduced the file is:
> commit 1a16a3351ff2f2cf9f0cc0a27c89a0652eb8dfb4
> Author: Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>
> Date:   Thu Oct 6 19:44:40 2011 +0100
> 
>     libvchan: interdomain communications library
> 
> As such I was wondering if the folks who wrote/checked the file in
> could weight in on what their intention was in regards to this file?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: libxenvchan license (lGPLv2.1) and xen/include/public/COPYING license?

[Ian Jackson]

Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] libxenvchan license (lGPLv2.1) and xen/include/public/COPYING license?"):
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 05:36:23PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > I picked the list of people on this email from the git log on tools/misc/libvchan/
> > (albeit this is about xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h).
> > 
> > The problem is that the 'COPYING' file in the root directory of Xen source 
> > says:
...
> > Also it is in FreeBSD (source tree): ./sys/xen/interface/io/libxenvchan.h
> > 
> > That looks to be an oversigh. The commit that introduced the file is:
> > commit 1a16a3351ff2f2cf9f0cc0a27c89a0652eb8dfb4
> > Author: Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>
> > Date:   Thu Oct 6 19:44:40 2011 +0100
> > 
> >     libvchan: interdomain communications library
> > 
> > As such I was wondering if the folks who wrote/checked the file in
> > could weight in on what their intention was in regards to this file?

ISTM that at the very least the libxenvchan.h file should indeed be
covered by the permissive ("BSD-style") licence.

If we intend for this library to be used in the BSDs (much like
in-kernel frontends) then the whole library should have a permissive
licence.

I did
  git-log --pretty='format:%an <%ae>' xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h tools/libvchan | sort -u
on stating, and got this output:

  Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@recoil.org>
  Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>
  David Scott <dave.scott@citrix.com>
  Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
  Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
  Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
  Jason Andryuk <andryuk@aero.org>
  Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
  Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
  Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com>
  Matthew Daley <mattjd@gmail.com>
  Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>
  Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@entel.upc.edu>
  Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>

I guess the Citrix staff ought to have a common view.  Lars, do we
need to consult with management or shall we just give our consent to
libvchan being permissively-licensed ?

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: libxenvchan license (lGPLv2.1) and xen/include/public/COPYING license?

[Marek Marczykowski-Górecki]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2616 bytes --]

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 04:54:42PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] libxenvchan license (lGPLv2.1) and xen/include/public/COPYING license?"):
> > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 05:36:23PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > I picked the list of people on this email from the git log on tools/misc/libvchan/
> > > (albeit this is about xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h).
> > > 
> > > The problem is that the 'COPYING' file in the root directory of Xen source 
> > > says:
> ...
> > > Also it is in FreeBSD (source tree): ./sys/xen/interface/io/libxenvchan.h
> > > 
> > > That looks to be an oversigh. The commit that introduced the file is:
> > > commit 1a16a3351ff2f2cf9f0cc0a27c89a0652eb8dfb4
> > > Author: Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>
> > > Date:   Thu Oct 6 19:44:40 2011 +0100
> > > 
> > >     libvchan: interdomain communications library
> > > 
> > > As such I was wondering if the folks who wrote/checked the file in
> > > could weight in on what their intention was in regards to this file?
> 
> ISTM that at the very least the libxenvchan.h file should indeed be
> covered by the permissive ("BSD-style") licence.
> 
> If we intend for this library to be used in the BSDs (much like
> in-kernel frontends) then the whole library should have a permissive
> licence.
> 
> I did
>   git-log --pretty='format:%an <%ae>' xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h tools/libvchan | sort -u
> on stating, and got this output:
> 
>   Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@recoil.org>
>   Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>
>   David Scott <dave.scott@citrix.com>
>   Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
>   Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
>   Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
>   Jason Andryuk <andryuk@aero.org>
>   Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
>   Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
>   Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com>
>   Matthew Daley <mattjd@gmail.com>
>   Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>
>   Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@entel.upc.edu>
>   Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
> 
> I guess the Citrix staff ought to have a common view.  Lars, do we
> need to consult with management or shall we just give our consent to
> libvchan being permissively-licensed ?

FWIW Neither I, nor ITL staff (as author of original libvchan library)
have anything against converting it to the BSD-style licence.

-- 
Best Regards,
Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
Invisible Things Lab
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

[PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

As the xen/COPYING file says:
"A few files are licensed under both GPL and a weaker BSD-style
license. This includes all files within the subdirectory
include/public, as described in include/public/COPYING. All such files
include the non-GPL license text as a source-code comment. Although
the license text refers generically to "the software", the non-GPL
license applies *only* to those source files that explicitly include
the non-GPL license text."

The libxenvchan.h is under xen/include/public/io directory
and the xen/include/public/COPYING says:

"XEN NOTICE
==========

This copyright applies to all files within this subdirectory and its
subdirectories:
  include/public/*.h
  include/public/hvm/*.h
  include/public/io/*.h

The intention is that these files can be freely copied into the source
tree of an operating system when porting that OS to run on Xen. Doing
so does *not* cause the OS to become subject to the terms of the GPL.

All other files in the Xen source distribution are covered by version
2 of the GNU General Public License except where explicitly stated
otherwise within individual source files.
"
Having the libxenvchan.h as Lesser GPL v2.1 where the COPYING file
says otherwise is confusing to say at least.

Upon consulting with the authors of libxenvchan they said:
"FWIW Neither I, nor ITL staff (as author of original libvchan library)
have anything against converting it to the BSD-style licence."
(Marek Marczykowski-Górecki,
http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-06/msg00995.html)
so as such lets change it.

Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>

---
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@recoil.org>
Cc: Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>
cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Jason Andryuk <andryuk@aero.org>
Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Cc: Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com>
Cc: Matthew Daley <mattjd@gmail.com>
Cc: Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>
Cc: Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@entel.upc.edu>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
Cc: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
---
 tools/libvchan/libxenvchan.h        | 25 +++++++++++++++----------
 xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h | 25 +++++++++++++++----------
 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/libvchan/libxenvchan.h b/tools/libvchan/libxenvchan.h
index 2adbdfe..c956d9d 100644
--- a/tools/libvchan/libxenvchan.h
+++ b/tools/libvchan/libxenvchan.h
@@ -10,18 +10,23 @@
  *
  * @section LICENSE
  *
- *  This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
- *  modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
- *  License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
- *  version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
+ * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+ * of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to
+ * deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the
+ * rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or
+ * sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+ * furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
  *
- *  This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
- *  but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
- *  MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
- *  Lesser General Public License for more details.
+ * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
+ * all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
  *
- *  You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
- *  License along with this library; If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
+ * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+ * IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+ * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+ * AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+ * LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
+ * FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER
+ * DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
  *
  * @section DESCRIPTION
  *
diff --git a/xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h b/xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h
index a62869a..44284f4 100644
--- a/xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h
+++ b/xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h
@@ -10,18 +10,23 @@
  *
  * @section LICENSE
  *
- *  This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
- *  modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
- *  License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
- *  version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
+ * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+ * of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to
+ * deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the
+ * rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or
+ * sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+ * furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
  *
- *  This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
- *  but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
- *  MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
- *  Lesser General Public License for more details.
+ * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
+ * all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
  *
- *  You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
- *  License along with this library; If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
+ * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+ * IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+ * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+ * AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+ * LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
+ * FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER
+ * DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
  *
  * @section DESCRIPTION
  *
-- 
2.5.5


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Wei Liu]

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 10:21:03AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> As the xen/COPYING file says:
> "A few files are licensed under both GPL and a weaker BSD-style
> license. This includes all files within the subdirectory
> include/public, as described in include/public/COPYING. All such files
> include the non-GPL license text as a source-code comment. Although
> the license text refers generically to "the software", the non-GPL
> license applies *only* to those source files that explicitly include
> the non-GPL license text."
> 
> The libxenvchan.h is under xen/include/public/io directory
> and the xen/include/public/COPYING says:
> 
> "XEN NOTICE
> ==========
> 
> This copyright applies to all files within this subdirectory and its
> subdirectories:
>   include/public/*.h
>   include/public/hvm/*.h
>   include/public/io/*.h
> 
> The intention is that these files can be freely copied into the source
> tree of an operating system when porting that OS to run on Xen. Doing
> so does *not* cause the OS to become subject to the terms of the GPL.
> 
> All other files in the Xen source distribution are covered by version
> 2 of the GNU General Public License except where explicitly stated
> otherwise within individual source files.
> "
> Having the libxenvchan.h as Lesser GPL v2.1 where the COPYING file
> says otherwise is confusing to say at least.
> 
> Upon consulting with the authors of libxenvchan they said:
> "FWIW Neither I, nor ITL staff (as author of original libvchan library)
> have anything against converting it to the BSD-style licence."
> (Marek Marczykowski-Górecki,
> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-06/msg00995.html)
> so as such lets change it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
> 

Whose acks are required for this patch?

(Also CC Lars)

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

.
>> 
>> Upon consulting with the authors of libxenvchan they said:
>> "FWIW Neither I, nor ITL staff (as author of original libvchan
>library)
>> have anything against converting it to the BSD-style licence."
>> (Marek Marczykowski-Górecki,
>> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-06/msg00995.html)
>> so as such lets change it.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
>> 
>
>Whose acks are required for this patch?
>
>(Also CC Lars)

Marek for sure.

And it would be to good have Daniel De Graaf too as he did the patch that put it in public/io.

And Ian Jackson as he did the initial commit.




_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Ian Jackson]

Wei Liu writes ("Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD"):
> Whose acks are required for this patch?

Everyone CC'd, or (in applicable cases) their employer.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Daniel De Graaf]

On 06/09/2016 10:21 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> As the xen/COPYING file says:
> "A few files are licensed under both GPL and a weaker BSD-style
> license. This includes all files within the subdirectory
> include/public, as described in include/public/COPYING. All such files
> include the non-GPL license text as a source-code comment. Although
> the license text refers generically to "the software", the non-GPL
> license applies *only* to those source files that explicitly include
> the non-GPL license text."
>
> The libxenvchan.h is under xen/include/public/io directory
> and the xen/include/public/COPYING says:
>
> "XEN NOTICE
> ==========
>
> This copyright applies to all files within this subdirectory and its
> subdirectories:
>   include/public/*.h
>   include/public/hvm/*.h
>   include/public/io/*.h
>
> The intention is that these files can be freely copied into the source
> tree of an operating system when porting that OS to run on Xen. Doing
> so does *not* cause the OS to become subject to the terms of the GPL.
>
> All other files in the Xen source distribution are covered by version
> 2 of the GNU General Public License except where explicitly stated
> otherwise within individual source files.
> "
> Having the libxenvchan.h as Lesser GPL v2.1 where the COPYING file
> says otherwise is confusing to say at least.
>
> Upon consulting with the authors of libxenvchan they said:
> "FWIW Neither I, nor ITL staff (as author of original libvchan library)
> have anything against converting it to the BSD-style licence."
> (Marek Marczykowski-Górecki,
> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-06/msg00995.html)
> so as such lets change it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>

Acked-by: Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Marek Marczykowski-Górecki]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2262 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 11:16:10AM -0400, Daniel De Graaf wrote:
> On 06/09/2016 10:21 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > As the xen/COPYING file says:
> > "A few files are licensed under both GPL and a weaker BSD-style
> > license. This includes all files within the subdirectory
> > include/public, as described in include/public/COPYING. All such files
> > include the non-GPL license text as a source-code comment. Although
> > the license text refers generically to "the software", the non-GPL
> > license applies *only* to those source files that explicitly include
> > the non-GPL license text."
> > 
> > The libxenvchan.h is under xen/include/public/io directory
> > and the xen/include/public/COPYING says:
> > 
> > "XEN NOTICE
> > ==========
> > 
> > This copyright applies to all files within this subdirectory and its
> > subdirectories:
> >   include/public/*.h
> >   include/public/hvm/*.h
> >   include/public/io/*.h
> > 
> > The intention is that these files can be freely copied into the source
> > tree of an operating system when porting that OS to run on Xen. Doing
> > so does *not* cause the OS to become subject to the terms of the GPL.
> > 
> > All other files in the Xen source distribution are covered by version
> > 2 of the GNU General Public License except where explicitly stated
> > otherwise within individual source files.
> > "
> > Having the libxenvchan.h as Lesser GPL v2.1 where the COPYING file
> > says otherwise is confusing to say at least.
> > 
> > Upon consulting with the authors of libxenvchan they said:
> > "FWIW Neither I, nor ITL staff (as author of original libvchan library)
> > have anything against converting it to the BSD-style licence."
> > (Marek Marczykowski-Górecki,
> > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-06/msg00995.html)
> > so as such lets change it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>

Acked-by: Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com>

-- 
Best Regards,
Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
Invisible Things Lab
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Olaf Hering]

On Thu, Jun 09, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:

> Having the libxenvchan.h as Lesser GPL v2.1 where the COPYING file
> says otherwise is confusing to say at least.

I'm fine with that. My changes to libvchan were just build fixes,
nothing substantial.

Olaf

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[George Dunlap]

On 09/06/16 15:21, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> As the xen/COPYING file says:
> "A few files are licensed under both GPL and a weaker BSD-style
> license. This includes all files within the subdirectory
> include/public, as described in include/public/COPYING. All such files
> include the non-GPL license text as a source-code comment. Although
> the license text refers generically to "the software", the non-GPL
> license applies *only* to those source files that explicitly include
> the non-GPL license text."
> 
> The libxenvchan.h is under xen/include/public/io directory
> and the xen/include/public/COPYING says:
> 
> "XEN NOTICE
> ==========
> 
> This copyright applies to all files within this subdirectory and its
> subdirectories:
>   include/public/*.h
>   include/public/hvm/*.h
>   include/public/io/*.h
> 
> The intention is that these files can be freely copied into the source
> tree of an operating system when porting that OS to run on Xen. Doing
> so does *not* cause the OS to become subject to the terms of the GPL.
> 
> All other files in the Xen source distribution are covered by version
> 2 of the GNU General Public License except where explicitly stated
> otherwise within individual source files.
> "
> Having the libxenvchan.h as Lesser GPL v2.1 where the COPYING file
> says otherwise is confusing to say at least.
> 
> Upon consulting with the authors of libxenvchan they said:
> "FWIW Neither I, nor ITL staff (as author of original libvchan library)
> have anything against converting it to the BSD-style licence."
> (Marek Marczykowski-Górecki,
> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-06/msg00995.html)
> so as such lets change it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
> 
> ---
> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
> Cc: Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@recoil.org>
> Cc: Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>
> cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>

To whatever extent it's helpful:

Acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Roger Pau Monné]

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 10:21:03AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> As the xen/COPYING file says:
> "A few files are licensed under both GPL and a weaker BSD-style
> license. This includes all files within the subdirectory
> include/public, as described in include/public/COPYING. All such files
> include the non-GPL license text as a source-code comment. Although
> the license text refers generically to "the software", the non-GPL
> license applies *only* to those source files that explicitly include
> the non-GPL license text."
> 
> The libxenvchan.h is under xen/include/public/io directory
> and the xen/include/public/COPYING says:
> 
> "XEN NOTICE
> ==========
> 
> This copyright applies to all files within this subdirectory and its
> subdirectories:
>   include/public/*.h
>   include/public/hvm/*.h
>   include/public/io/*.h
> 
> The intention is that these files can be freely copied into the source
> tree of an operating system when porting that OS to run on Xen. Doing
> so does *not* cause the OS to become subject to the terms of the GPL.
> 
> All other files in the Xen source distribution are covered by version
> 2 of the GNU General Public License except where explicitly stated
> otherwise within individual source files.
> "
> Having the libxenvchan.h as Lesser GPL v2.1 where the COPYING file
> says otherwise is confusing to say at least.
> 
> Upon consulting with the authors of libxenvchan they said:
> "FWIW Neither I, nor ITL staff (as author of original libvchan library)
> have anything against converting it to the BSD-style licence."
> (Marek Marczykowski-Górecki,
> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-06/msg00995.html)
> so as such lets change it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>

Acked-by: Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@entel.upc.edu>

Roger.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Ian Jackson]

Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("[PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD"):
> As the xen/COPYING file says:
> "A few files are licensed under both GPL and a weaker BSD-style
> license. This includes all files within the subdirectory
> include/public, as described in include/public/COPYING. All such files
> include the non-GPL license text as a source-code comment. Although
> the license text refers generically to "the software", the non-GPL
> license applies *only* to those source files that explicitly include
> the non-GPL license text."

I personally think this patch is a good idea.

I am going to get confirmation from management at Citrix and then
hopefully I will be able to (very soon) give an ack on behalf of all
the Citrix staff.

Ian.

(Changed ijc's email address.)

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Andrew Cooper]

On 09/06/16 15:21, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> As the xen/COPYING file says:
> "A few files are licensed under both GPL and a weaker BSD-style
> license. This includes all files within the subdirectory
> include/public, as described in include/public/COPYING. All such files
> include the non-GPL license text as a source-code comment. Although
> the license text refers generically to "the software", the non-GPL
> license applies *only* to those source files that explicitly include
> the non-GPL license text."
>
> The libxenvchan.h is under xen/include/public/io directory
> and the xen/include/public/COPYING says:
>
> "XEN NOTICE
> ==========
>
> This copyright applies to all files within this subdirectory and its
> subdirectories:
>   include/public/*.h
>   include/public/hvm/*.h
>   include/public/io/*.h
>
> The intention is that these files can be freely copied into the source
> tree of an operating system when porting that OS to run on Xen. Doing
> so does *not* cause the OS to become subject to the terms of the GPL.
>
> All other files in the Xen source distribution are covered by version
> 2 of the GNU General Public License except where explicitly stated
> otherwise within individual source files.
> "
> Having the libxenvchan.h as Lesser GPL v2.1 where the COPYING file
> says otherwise is confusing to say at least.
>
> Upon consulting with the authors of libxenvchan they said:
> "FWIW Neither I, nor ITL staff (as author of original libvchan library)
> have anything against converting it to the BSD-style licence."
> (Marek Marczykowski-Górecki,
> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-06/msg00995.html)
> so as such lets change it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>

Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Ian Jackson]

Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("[PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD"):
> As the xen/COPYING file says:
> "A few files are licensed under both GPL and a weaker BSD-style
> license. This includes all files within the subdirectory
> include/public, as described in include/public/COPYING. All such files
> include the non-GPL license text as a source-code comment. Although
> the license text refers generically to "the software", the non-GPL
> license applies *only* to those source files that explicitly include
> the non-GPL license text."

I have spoken to my line manager.  I can confirm that Citrix is happy
with this proposed change.  So:

Acked-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>

This view from Citrix covers all contributions made to these files in
the course of Citrix's employees' employment, which I think is:

> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
> cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
> Cc: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
> Cc: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
> Cc: Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@entel.upc.edu>
> Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
> Cc: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
> Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Jason P Andryuk]

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 11:16:10AM -0400, Daniel De Graaf wrote:
> On 06/09/2016 10:21 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > As the xen/COPYING file says:
> > "A few files are licensed under both GPL and a weaker BSD-style 
> > license. This includes all files within the subdirectory 
> > include/public, as described in include/public/COPYING. All such 
> > files include the non-GPL license text as a source-code comment. 
> > Although the license text refers generically to "the software", the 
> > non-GPL license applies *only* to those source files that explicitly 
> > include the non-GPL license text."
> > 
> > The libxenvchan.h is under xen/include/public/io directory and the 
> > xen/include/public/COPYING says:
> > 
> > "XEN NOTICE
> > ==========
> > 
> > This copyright applies to all files within this subdirectory and its
> > subdirectories:
> >   include/public/*.h
> >   include/public/hvm/*.h
> >   include/public/io/*.h
> > 
> > The intention is that these files can be freely copied into the 
> > source tree of an operating system when porting that OS to run on 
> > Xen. Doing so does *not* cause the OS to become subject to the terms of the GPL.
> > 
> > All other files in the Xen source distribution are covered by 
> > version
> > 2 of the GNU General Public License except where explicitly stated 
> > otherwise within individual source files.
> > "
> > Having the libxenvchan.h as Lesser GPL v2.1 where the COPYING file 
> > says otherwise is confusing to say at least.
> > 
> > Upon consulting with the authors of libxenvchan they said:
> > "FWIW Neither I, nor ITL staff (as author of original libvchan 
> > library) have anything against converting it to the BSD-style licence."
> > (Marek Marczykowski-Górecki,
> > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-06/msg00995.html)
> > so as such lets change it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>

Acked-by: Jason Andryuk <andryuk@aero.org>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Wei Liu]

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 05:27:30PM +0200, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> 
> > Having the libxenvchan.h as Lesser GPL v2.1 where the COPYING file
> > says otherwise is confusing to say at least.
> 
> I'm fine with that. My changes to libvchan were just build fixes,
> nothing substantial.
> 

Can you give a formal ack so that it can be put into the commit log?
Thanks!

Wei.

> Olaf

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Anil Madhavapeddy]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2232 bytes --]


> On 9 Jun 2016, at 17:34, Jason P Andryuk <jason.p.andryuk@aero.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 11:16:10AM -0400, Daniel De Graaf wrote:
>> On 06/09/2016 10:21 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> As the xen/COPYING file says:
>>> "A few files are licensed under both GPL and a weaker BSD-style 
>>> license. This includes all files within the subdirectory 
>>> include/public, as described in include/public/COPYING. All such 
>>> files include the non-GPL license text as a source-code comment. 
>>> Although the license text refers generically to "the software", the 
>>> non-GPL license applies *only* to those source files that explicitly 
>>> include the non-GPL license text."
>>> 
>>> The libxenvchan.h is under xen/include/public/io directory and the 
>>> xen/include/public/COPYING says:
>>> 
>>> "XEN NOTICE
>>> ==========
>>> 
>>> This copyright applies to all files within this subdirectory and its
>>> subdirectories:
>>>  include/public/*.h
>>>  include/public/hvm/*.h
>>>  include/public/io/*.h
>>> 
>>> The intention is that these files can be freely copied into the 
>>> source tree of an operating system when porting that OS to run on 
>>> Xen. Doing so does *not* cause the OS to become subject to the terms of the GPL.
>>> 
>>> All other files in the Xen source distribution are covered by 
>>> version
>>> 2 of the GNU General Public License except where explicitly stated 
>>> otherwise within individual source files.
>>> "
>>> Having the libxenvchan.h as Lesser GPL v2.1 where the COPYING file 
>>> says otherwise is confusing to say at least.
>>> 
>>> Upon consulting with the authors of libxenvchan they said:
>>> "FWIW Neither I, nor ITL staff (as author of original libvchan 
>>> library) have anything against converting it to the BSD-style licence."
>>> (Marek Marczykowski-Górecki,
>>> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-06/msg00995.html)
>>> so as such lets change it.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
>> 
>> Acked-by: Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>
> 
> Acked-by: Jason Andryuk <andryuk@aero.org>

Acked-by: Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@recoil.org <mailto:anil@recoil.org>>


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3427 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Olaf Hering]

On Thu, Jun 09, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:

> Having the libxenvchan.h as Lesser GPL v2.1 where the COPYING file
> says otherwise is confusing to say at least.

> Cc: Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>

Signed-off-by: Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Wei Liu]

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 06:45:10PM +0200, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> 
> > Having the libxenvchan.h as Lesser GPL v2.1 where the COPYING file
> > says otherwise is confusing to say at least.
> 
> > Cc: Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>
> 

Hmm... I think you fat-fingered your tag.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Olaf Hering]

On Thu, Jun 09, Wei Liu wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 06:45:10PM +0200, Olaf Hering wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 09, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > 
> > > Having the libxenvchan.h as Lesser GPL v2.1 where the COPYING file
> > > says otherwise is confusing to say at least.
> > 
> > > Cc: Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>
> > 
> 
> Hmm... I think you fat-fingered your tag.

Time to call it a day:

Acked-by: Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>


Olaf

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 09.06.16 at 16:21, <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
> As the xen/COPYING file says:
> "A few files are licensed under both GPL and a weaker BSD-style
> license. This includes all files within the subdirectory
> include/public, as described in include/public/COPYING. All such files
> include the non-GPL license text as a source-code comment. Although
> the license text refers generically to "the software", the non-GPL
> license applies *only* to those source files that explicitly include
> the non-GPL license text."
> 
> The libxenvchan.h is under xen/include/public/io directory
> and the xen/include/public/COPYING says:
> 
> "XEN NOTICE
> ==========
> 
> This copyright applies to all files within this subdirectory and its
> subdirectories:
>   include/public/*.h
>   include/public/hvm/*.h
>   include/public/io/*.h
> 
> The intention is that these files can be freely copied into the source
> tree of an operating system when porting that OS to run on Xen. Doing
> so does *not* cause the OS to become subject to the terms of the GPL.
> 
> All other files in the Xen source distribution are covered by version
> 2 of the GNU General Public License except where explicitly stated
> otherwise within individual source files.
> "
> Having the libxenvchan.h as Lesser GPL v2.1 where the COPYING file
> says otherwise is confusing to say at least.
> 
> Upon consulting with the authors of libxenvchan they said:
> "FWIW Neither I, nor ITL staff (as author of original libvchan library)
> have anything against converting it to the BSD-style licence."
> (Marek Marczykowski-Górecki,
> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-06/msg00995.html)
> so as such lets change it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>

Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

But I don't even know who to ask for a company wide
statement, should that really be required (as Ian suggests).

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Matthew Daley]

On 10 June 2016 at 02:21, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
> As the xen/COPYING file says:
> "A few files are licensed under both GPL and a weaker BSD-style
> license. This includes all files within the subdirectory
> include/public, as described in include/public/COPYING. All such files
> include the non-GPL license text as a source-code comment. Although
> the license text refers generically to "the software", the non-GPL
> license applies *only* to those source files that explicitly include
> the non-GPL license text."
>
> The libxenvchan.h is under xen/include/public/io directory
> and the xen/include/public/COPYING says:
>
> "XEN NOTICE
> ==========
>
> This copyright applies to all files within this subdirectory and its
> subdirectories:
>   include/public/*.h
>   include/public/hvm/*.h
>   include/public/io/*.h
>
> The intention is that these files can be freely copied into the source
> tree of an operating system when porting that OS to run on Xen. Doing
> so does *not* cause the OS to become subject to the terms of the GPL.
>
> All other files in the Xen source distribution are covered by version
> 2 of the GNU General Public License except where explicitly stated
> otherwise within individual source files.
> "
> Having the libxenvchan.h as Lesser GPL v2.1 where the COPYING file
> says otherwise is confusing to say at least.
>
> Upon consulting with the authors of libxenvchan they said:
> "FWIW Neither I, nor ITL staff (as author of original libvchan library)
> have anything against converting it to the BSD-style licence."
> (Marek Marczykowski-Górecki,
> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-06/msg00995.html)
> so as such lets change it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
>
> ---

Acked-by: Matthew Daley <mattd@bugfuzz.com>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Ian Campbell]

On Thu, 2016-06-09 at 16:43 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("[PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change
> license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD"):
> > 
> > As the xen/COPYING file says:
> > "A few files are licensed under both GPL and a weaker BSD-style
> > license. This includes all files within the subdirectory
> > include/public, as described in include/public/COPYING. All such
> > files
> > include the non-GPL license text as a source-code comment. Although
> > the license text refers generically to "the software", the non-GPL
> > license applies *only* to those source files that explicitly
> > include
> > the non-GPL license text."
> I personally think this patch is a good idea.

To change xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h only or both that
and tools/libvchan/libxenvchan.h?

Historically the view of the Xen Project was the hypercall and PV ring
A[BP]Is should be BSD so that proprietary OSes could be ported to Xen
or PV drivers could be written for proprietary OSes etc.

But the view for toolstack libraries (libxenctrl, guest etc) was
traditionally that the project wanted them to remain copyleft. IIRC
originally one or both of libxenctrl and libxenguest were full-GPL but
we decided that was too far and went through a relicensing excercise to
make it LGPL, which allows for proprietary toolstack applications to be
built on top of the foundational libraries while still ensuring that
improvements to those libraries are contributed back.

So, I guess I don't really undertstand the case for / desire to
relicense tools/libvchan/libxenvchan.h, especially given that the other
tools/libvchan/*.[ch] files don't appear to be being relicensed in [0].

OTOH I only touched this file while at Citrix so I don't have any
actual say given Ian J's gotten sign off from Citrix.

Ian.

[0] http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-06/msg01257.html

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Ian Jackson]

Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD"):
> On Thu, 2016-06-09 at 16:43 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("[PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change
> > license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD"):
> > > 
> > > As the xen/COPYING file says:
> > > "A few files are licensed under both GPL and a weaker BSD-style
> > > license. This includes all files within the subdirectory
> > > include/public, as described in include/public/COPYING. All such
> > > files
> > > include the non-GPL license text as a source-code comment. Although
> > > the license text refers generically to "the software", the non-GPL
> > > license applies *only* to those source files that explicitly
> > > include
> > > the non-GPL license text."
> > I personally think this patch is a good idea.
> 
> To change xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h only or both that
> and tools/libvchan/libxenvchan.h?

I hadn't thought about this distinction clearly enough.

> Historically the view of the Xen Project was the hypercall and PV ring
> A[BP]Is should be BSD so that proprietary OSes could be ported to Xen
> or PV drivers could be written for proprietary OSes etc.
> 
> But the view for toolstack libraries (libxenctrl, guest etc) was
> traditionally that the project wanted them to remain copyleft. IIRC
> originally one or both of libxenctrl and libxenguest were full-GPL but
> we decided that was too far and went through a relicensing excercise to
> make it LGPL, which allows for proprietary toolstack applications to be
> built on top of the foundational libraries while still ensuring that
> improvements to those libraries are contributed back.

Yes.

> So, I guess I don't really undertstand the case for / desire to
> relicense tools/libvchan/libxenvchan.h, especially given that the other
> tools/libvchan/*.[ch] files don't appear to be being relicensed in [0].

I agree that it does not make sense to change
tools/libvchan/libxenvchan.h on its own.  We should probably drop that
change from this patch.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Ian Jackson]

Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD"):
> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("[PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD"):
> > As the xen/COPYING file says:
> > "A few files are licensed under both GPL and a weaker BSD-style
> > license. This includes all files within the subdirectory
> > include/public, as described in include/public/COPYING. All such files
> > include the non-GPL license text as a source-code comment. Although
> > the license text refers generically to "the software", the non-GPL
> > license applies *only* to those source files that explicitly include
> > the non-GPL license text."
> 
> I have spoken to my line manager.  I can confirm that Citrix is happy
> with this proposed change.  So:
> 
> Acked-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
> 
> This view from Citrix covers all contributions made to these files in
> the course of Citrix's employees' employment, which I think is:
> 
> > Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
> > cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
> > Cc: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
> > Cc: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
> > Cc: Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@entel.upc.edu>
> > Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
> > Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>

Wei points out that this ought also to include Keir Fraser's
contribution, which was (only) in 2012.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 02:07:30PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD"):
> > On Thu, 2016-06-09 at 16:43 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("[PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change
> > > license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD"):
> > > > 
> > > > As the xen/COPYING file says:
> > > > "A few files are licensed under both GPL and a weaker BSD-style
> > > > license. This includes all files within the subdirectory
> > > > include/public, as described in include/public/COPYING. All such
> > > > files
> > > > include the non-GPL license text as a source-code comment. Although
> > > > the license text refers generically to "the software", the non-GPL
> > > > license applies *only* to those source files that explicitly
> > > > include
> > > > the non-GPL license text."
> > > I personally think this patch is a good idea.
> > 
> > To change xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h only or both that
> > and tools/libvchan/libxenvchan.h?
> 
> I hadn't thought about this distinction clearly enough.
> 
> > Historically the view of the Xen Project was the hypercall and PV ring
> > A[BP]Is should be BSD so that proprietary OSes could be ported to Xen
> > or PV drivers could be written for proprietary OSes etc.
> > 
> > But the view for toolstack libraries (libxenctrl, guest etc) was
> > traditionally that the project wanted them to remain copyleft. IIRC
> > originally one or both of libxenctrl and libxenguest were full-GPL but
> > we decided that was too far and went through a relicensing excercise to
> > make it LGPL, which allows for proprietary toolstack applications to be
> > built on top of the foundational libraries while still ensuring that
> > improvements to those libraries are contributed back.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > So, I guess I don't really undertstand the case for / desire to
> > relicense tools/libvchan/libxenvchan.h, especially given that the other
> > tools/libvchan/*.[ch] files don't appear to be being relicensed in [0].

Just consistency.

> 
> I agree that it does not make sense to change
> tools/libvchan/libxenvchan.h on its own.  We should probably drop that
> change from this patch.

That is fine with me!

> 
> Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Wei Liu]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 09:31:25AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 02:07:30PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD"):
> > > On Thu, 2016-06-09 at 16:43 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > > Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("[PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change
> > > > license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD"):
> > > > > 
> > > > > As the xen/COPYING file says:
> > > > > "A few files are licensed under both GPL and a weaker BSD-style
> > > > > license. This includes all files within the subdirectory
> > > > > include/public, as described in include/public/COPYING. All such
> > > > > files
> > > > > include the non-GPL license text as a source-code comment. Although
> > > > > the license text refers generically to "the software", the non-GPL
> > > > > license applies *only* to those source files that explicitly
> > > > > include
> > > > > the non-GPL license text."
> > > > I personally think this patch is a good idea.
> > > 
> > > To change xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h only or both that
> > > and tools/libvchan/libxenvchan.h?
> > 
> > I hadn't thought about this distinction clearly enough.
> > 
> > > Historically the view of the Xen Project was the hypercall and PV ring
> > > A[BP]Is should be BSD so that proprietary OSes could be ported to Xen
> > > or PV drivers could be written for proprietary OSes etc.
> > > 
> > > But the view for toolstack libraries (libxenctrl, guest etc) was
> > > traditionally that the project wanted them to remain copyleft. IIRC
> > > originally one or both of libxenctrl and libxenguest were full-GPL but
> > > we decided that was too far and went through a relicensing excercise to
> > > make it LGPL, which allows for proprietary toolstack applications to be
> > > built on top of the foundational libraries while still ensuring that
> > > improvements to those libraries are contributed back.
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > > So, I guess I don't really undertstand the case for / desire to
> > > relicense tools/libvchan/libxenvchan.h, especially given that the other
> > > tools/libvchan/*.[ch] files don't appear to be being relicensed in [0].
> 
> Just consistency.
> 
> > 
> > I agree that it does not make sense to change
> > tools/libvchan/libxenvchan.h on its own.  We should probably drop that
> > change from this patch.
> 
> That is fine with me!
> 

Can you collect all the acks and submit the updated patch within today?
That's assuming you want this committed for 4.7.

(My understanding is that you don't need to go over and get all the acks
again for the new patch)

Wei.

> > 
> > Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Ian Campbell]

On Fri, 2016-06-10 at 09:31 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > So, I guess I don't really undertstand the case for / desire to
> > > relicense tools/libvchan/libxenvchan.h, especially given that the
> > > other
> > > tools/libvchan/*.[ch] files don't appear to be being relicensed
> > > in [0].
> Just consistency.

I'd say it introduces a (far) bigger inconsistency than it avoids.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

[PATCH v2 hopefully for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

As the xen/COPYING file says:
"A few files are licensed under both GPL and a weaker BSD-style
license. This includes all files within the subdirectory
include/public, as described in include/public/COPYING. All such files
include the non-GPL license text as a source-code comment. Although
the license text refers generically to "the software", the non-GPL
license applies *only* to those source files that explicitly include
the non-GPL license text."

The libxenvchan.h is under xen/include/public/io directory
and the xen/include/public/COPYING says:

"XEN NOTICE
==========

This copyright applies to all files within this subdirectory and its
subdirectories:
  include/public/*.h
  include/public/hvm/*.h
  include/public/io/*.h

The intention is that these files can be freely copied into the source
tree of an operating system when porting that OS to run on Xen. Doing
so does *not* cause the OS to become subject to the terms of the GPL.

All other files in the Xen source distribution are covered by version
2 of the GNU General Public License except where explicitly stated
otherwise within individual source files.
"
Having the libxenvchan.h as Lesser GPL v2.1 where the COPYING file
says otherwise is confusing to say at least.

Upon consulting with the authors of libxenvchan they said:
"FWIW Neither I, nor ITL staff (as author of original libvchan library)
have anything against converting it to the BSD-style licence."
(Marek Marczykowski-Górecki,
http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-06/msg00995.html)
so as such lets change it.

Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Acked-by: Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@recoil.org>
Acked-by: Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>
Acked-by: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Acked-by: Jason Andryuk <andryuk@aero.org>
Acked-by: Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com>
Acked-by: Matthew Daley <mattjd@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>
Acked-by: Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@entel.upc.edu>
Acked-by: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
["I have spoken to my line manager.  I can confirm that Citrix is happy
 with this proposed change.  So:

 Acked-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>

 This view from Citrix covers all contributions made to these files in
 the course of Citrix's employees' employment, which I think is:

 > Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
 > cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
 > Cc: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
 > Cc: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
 > Cc: Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@entel.upc.edu>
 > Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
 > Cc: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
 > Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>

 ..
 [in subsequent email]:
 Wei points out that this ought also to include Keir Fraser's
 contribution, which was (only) in 2012.
 " (from Ian's email):

---
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@recoil.org>
Cc: Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>
cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Jason Andryuk <andryuk@aero.org>
Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Cc: Marek Marczykowski-G=C3=B3recki <marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com>
Cc: Matthew Daley <mattjd@gmail.com>
Cc: Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>
Cc: Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@entel.upc.edu>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
Cc: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>

v2: Only have the change in xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h
---
 xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h | 25 +++++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h b/xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h
index a62869a..44284f4 100644
--- a/xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h
+++ b/xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h
@@ -10,18 +10,23 @@
  *
  * @section LICENSE
  *
- *  This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
- *  modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
- *  License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
- *  version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
+ * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+ * of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to
+ * deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the
+ * rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or
+ * sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+ * furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
  *
- *  This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
- *  but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
- *  MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
- *  Lesser General Public License for more details.
+ * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
+ * all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
  *
- *  You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
- *  License along with this library; If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
+ * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+ * IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+ * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+ * AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+ * LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
+ * FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER
+ * DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
  *
  * @section DESCRIPTION
  *
-- 
2.5.5


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH v2 hopefully for 4.7] libxenvchan: Change license of header from Lesser GPL v2.1 to BSD

[Wei Liu]

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 05:28:57AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> As the xen/COPYING file says:
> "A few files are licensed under both GPL and a weaker BSD-style
> license. This includes all files within the subdirectory
> include/public, as described in include/public/COPYING. All such files
> include the non-GPL license text as a source-code comment. Although
> the license text refers generically to "the software", the non-GPL
> license applies *only* to those source files that explicitly include
> the non-GPL license text."
> 
> The libxenvchan.h is under xen/include/public/io directory
> and the xen/include/public/COPYING says:
> 
> "XEN NOTICE
> ==========
> 
> This copyright applies to all files within this subdirectory and its
> subdirectories:
>   include/public/*.h
>   include/public/hvm/*.h
>   include/public/io/*.h
> 
> The intention is that these files can be freely copied into the source
> tree of an operating system when porting that OS to run on Xen. Doing
> so does *not* cause the OS to become subject to the terms of the GPL.
> 
> All other files in the Xen source distribution are covered by version
> 2 of the GNU General Public License except where explicitly stated
> otherwise within individual source files.
> "
> Having the libxenvchan.h as Lesser GPL v2.1 where the COPYING file
> says otherwise is confusing to say at least.
> 
> Upon consulting with the authors of libxenvchan they said:
> "FWIW Neither I, nor ITL staff (as author of original libvchan library)
> have anything against converting it to the BSD-style licence."
> (Marek Marczykowski-Górecki,
> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-06/msg00995.html)
> so as such lets change it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
> Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
> Acked-by: Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@recoil.org>
> Acked-by: Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>
> Acked-by: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
> Acked-by: Jason Andryuk <andryuk@aero.org>
> Acked-by: Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com>
> Acked-by: Matthew Daley <mattjd@gmail.com>
> Acked-by: Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>
> Acked-by: Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@entel.upc.edu>
> Acked-by: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
> ["I have spoken to my line manager.  I can confirm that Citrix is happy
>  with this proposed change.  So:
> 
>  Acked-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
> 
>  This view from Citrix covers all contributions made to these files in
>  the course of Citrix's employees' employment, which I think is:
> 
>  > Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
>  > cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
>  > Cc: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
>  > Cc: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
>  > Cc: Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@entel.upc.edu>
>  > Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
>  > Cc: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
>  > Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
> 
>  [in subsequent email]:
>  Wei points out that this ought also to include Keir Fraser's
>  contribution, which was (only) in 2012.
>  " (from Ian's email):
> 

The list of people who touched tools/libvchan:

    $ git log --format="%an <%ae>" tools/libvchan | sort | uniq
    Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@recoil.org>
    Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>
    David Scott <dave.scott@citrix.com>
    Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
    Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
    Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
    Jason Andryuk <andryuk@aero.org>
    Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
    Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
    Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com>
    Matthew Daley <mattjd@gmail.com>
    Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>
    Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@entel.upc.edu>

Note that David Scott is listed in my output, but Konrad didn't have
him in the list of authors.

However, David Scott made his contribution while he was employed by
Citrix, so his contribution is covered by the statement provided by Ian.

(CC Dave)

I will update the commit message accordingly.

The list of people who touched public header:

   $ git log --format=format:"%an <%ae>" xen/include/public/io/libxenvchan.h | sort | uniq
   Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>
   Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com> 

All in all, I believe this patch has collected all the necessary acks.

I've queued it up for unstable and 4.7 branch.

Thanks everyone.

Wei.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel