Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 02/20] acpi/hvmloader: Move acpi_info initialization out of ACPI code

[Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 02/20] acpi/hvmloader: 
Move acpi_info initialization out of ACPI code"):
> Having different licenses will invite the lawyers in the conversation
> which can drag things out.

We don't want libxl to have some confusing combination of
alleged-licences.

> A quick read says one can add an exception to GPLv2 license to allow it
> to be linked (see 
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs)
> but that would require Copyright OK from the original holders.
> 
> It would be far easier to ask the copyright holders:

Yes.  That seems to be Citrix, Intel, Sun (Oracle), IBM, and:

>  Tobias Geiger <tobias.geiger@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> If they would be OK making the code (this is from
> tools/firmware/hvmloader/acpi/acpi2_0.h) lGPL.

Right.

> Or is there some other technical way around this?

No.

> I can't recall whether the 'dlopen' (so runtime loading
> vs linking) of an GPL library is from Lesser GPL is OK.
> (so proprietary code linking with libxl, and libxl dlopen'ing
> the libacpi code').

This kind of attempt at licence workaround by some kind of technical
bodge is not legally effective.

Ian.

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