Re: [Xen-devel] ACPI builder re-licensing

[Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Lars Kurth writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] ACPI builder re-licensing"):
> I think we should pick a specific version, because the COPYING file in 
> xen.git states - although not very clearly - to pick a specific license with 
> a specific version. Given that libxc/libxl is intended to be LGPL 2.1, we 
> should go for 2.1.

My personal view is that LGPLv2.1+ is better because it's more
flexible - less of a hostage to the future.  But the existing
libraries are LGPLv2.1 and without a community decision to start
moving to LGPLv2.1+ I think it's wrong to have files with that licence
header.

> It may also make sense to start using SPDX License Identifiers (see 
> http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Technical_Team/SPDX_Meta_Tags#Tag_Format)
> 
> alongside the (c) notice for files which do not use GPLv2, as it reduces the 
> scope for mistakes and increases the chances of mistakes being picked up by 
> reviewers.

I don't agree with this.  This ends up stating the same information in
another way which gives more scope for inconsistency and errors.  Eg,
you could write a GPLv2+ copyright notice but a the LGPL-2.1-only SPDX
ID.  And then what would it mean ?

But we do not need to settle that question now.

> We have a similar issue with some GPLv2 files in Xen, where contributors 
> appear to have forgotten to delete the "or (at your option) any later 
> version", in some files by mistake. 

Likewise we should avoid opening this can of worms as part of what
Boris is trying to do here.

So in summary I think Boris should ask people whether they are happy
to relicence from GPLv2-only to LGPLv2.1-only.

Ian.

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