Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] acpi: Re-license ACPI builder files from GPLv2 to LGPLv2.1

[Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Boris Ostrovsky writes ("[PATCH RFC] acpi: Re-license ACPI builder files from 
GPLv2 to LGPLv2.1"):
> ACPI builder is currently distributed under GPLv2 license.
> 
> We plan to make the builder available to components other
> than the hvmloader (which is also GPLv2). Some of these
> components (such as libxl) may distributed under non-GPLv2
> licenses and thus we may not be able to link the builder
> against them.

I would say

  Some of these components (such as libxl) may distributed under
  LGPL-2.1 so that they can be used by non-GPLv2 callers.  But this
  will not be possible if we incorporate the ACPI builder in those
  other components.

> The copyright text that I used here is a copy of what libxl uses.
> It does not include the GNU's last paragraph about where the license
> can be obtained. Not sure if it is required. I also kept the note
> about (non-existing) LICENSE file.

I think this is fine.

> I added the notice to mk_dsdt.c which didn't have any. The notice
> may not be required since mk_dsdt is Xen build tool and is
> not shipped but I added it for consistency.

The tool does not a licence statement.

> Here is what we might write to companies' reps from whom we are
> requesting approval:
> 
> Xen Project is requesting you assistance in the following matter.
> 
> As part of making improvements to Xen hypervisor and its toolstack we
> would like to make part of existing code (specifically, ACPI builder
> which currently resides in tools/firmware/hvmloader/acpi of the Xen source
> tree) available via object linking to a wider range of tools. Currently
> ACPI builder is licensed under GPL version 2 while some of the tools
> that we want to link the builder to are distributed under the Lesser
> GPL license, version 2.1.
> 
> More details can be found in
>   https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-07/msg01367.html
> 
> You have been identified as representing an organization that potentially
> holds copyright to the ACPI builder code (either by listing your company as
> copyright holder explicitly in the sources or by having your company's
> employee contribute to the code). We are asking you to approve the change
> that we are proposing. In other words, we are asking you to affirm the
> following:
> 
>   I, <name>, representing <organization>, do not have any objections
>   to relicensing Xen code (currently residing under
>   tools/firmware/hvmloader/acpi) from GPLv2 to LGPLv2.1

I would say:
 
    I, <name>, representing <organization>, do not have any objections
    to relicensing the Xen ACPI builder code (currently residing under
    tools/firmware/hvmloader/acpi) from GPLv2 to LGPLv2.1

to make it specific and avoid people fearing we mean the whole of Xen.

> Respectfully,
> Xen Project

This should be

  Respectfully,

  Lars Kurth (Xen Project Community Manager)
  Boris Ostrovsky (Oracle)
  Ian Jackson (Citrix)

and anyone else you can get to sign up :-).  (Assuming we get Lars's
OK on the text...)

Ian.

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