Uploaded image for project: 'Lustre'
  1. Lustre
  2. LU-6613

lib-dlc.h is under LGPLv3

Details

    • Question/Request
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Minor
    • Lustre 2.8.0
    • None
    • None
    • 9223372036854775807

    Description

      Though it doesn't really matter since it's just a header, the license on this file stands compared to the others (LGPLv3+ vs GPLv2/LGPLv2). Is that unintentional?

      Attachments

        Issue Links

          is related to

          Improvement - An improvement or enhancement to an existing feature or task. LU-5969 Create an LGPL version of liblustreapi

          • Major - Major loss of function.
          • Resolved

          Activity

            [LU-6613] lib-dlc.h is under LGPLv3
            gerrit Gerrit Updater added a comment -

            Oleg Drokin (oleg.drokin@intel.com) merged in patch http://review.whamcloud.com/17697/
            Subject: LU-6613 lnet: change lib-dlc.h to LGPLv2.1 license
            Project: fs/lustre-release
            Branch: master
            Current Patch Set:
            Commit: ad77bcfd14b662ef86c71f812b11cfc203a4543f

            gerrit Gerrit Updater added a comment - Oleg Drokin (oleg.drokin@intel.com) merged in patch http://review.whamcloud.com/17697/ Subject: LU-6613 lnet: change lib-dlc.h to LGPLv2.1 license Project: fs/lustre-release Branch: master Current Patch Set: Commit: ad77bcfd14b662ef86c71f812b11cfc203a4543f
            adilger Andreas Dilger added a comment -

            The only thing that is needed here is to change from LGPLv3 to LGPLv2.1.

            adilger Andreas Dilger added a comment - The only thing that is needed here is to change from LGPLv3 to LGPLv2.1.
            simmonsja James A Simmons added a comment - - edited

            As Andreas pointed out:

            -----------------------
            It is fine to use the LGPL v2.1 code in a GPL v2.0-only program. LGPL v2.1 is compatible with GPL v2.0, see:
            http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
            http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#compat-matrix-footnote-7

            What we can't do is change this header to be GPLv2.0 only and then use it in a non-GPL userspace program, so it needs to remain as LGPLv2.1.
            -----------------------

            Looking at other parts of the code we other places where GPL v2 headers are being used in LGPL code. An example is uapi_kernelcomm.h where all the HSM code is LGPL.

            simmonsja James A Simmons added a comment - - edited As Andreas pointed out: ----------------------- It is fine to use the LGPL v2.1 code in a GPL v2.0-only program. LGPL v2.1 is compatible with GPL v2.0, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#compat-matrix-footnote-7 What we can't do is change this header to be GPLv2.0 only and then use it in a non-GPL userspace program, so it needs to remain as LGPLv2.1. ----------------------- Looking at other parts of the code we other places where GPL v2 headers are being used in LGPL code. An example is uapi_kernelcomm.h where all the HSM code is LGPL.
            gerrit Gerrit Updater added a comment -

            James Simmons (uja.ornl@yahoo.com) uploaded a new patch: http://review.whamcloud.com/17697
            Subject: LU-6613 lnet: change lib-dlc.h to GPLv2 license
            Project: fs/lustre-release
            Branch: master
            Current Patch Set: 1
            Commit: 9cd7af01724278f5521641add2f81f9112dfd72b

            gerrit Gerrit Updater added a comment - James Simmons (uja.ornl@yahoo.com) uploaded a new patch: http://review.whamcloud.com/17697 Subject: LU-6613 lnet: change lib-dlc.h to GPLv2 license Project: fs/lustre-release Branch: master Current Patch Set: 1 Commit: 9cd7af01724278f5521641add2f81f9112dfd72b
            adilger Andreas Dilger added a comment - - edited

            Frank, thanks for pointing this out. This is indeed a mistake, and the file should be licensed under LGPL v2.1 instead of LGPL v3.0.

            Amir, can you please submit a patch to change this version in the header. It also needs a patch for 2.7.1.

            adilger Andreas Dilger added a comment - - edited Frank, thanks for pointing this out. This is indeed a mistake, and the file should be licensed under LGPL v2.1 instead of LGPL v3.0. Amir, can you please submit a patch to change this version in the header. It also needs a patch for 2.7.1.
            simmonsja James A Simmons added a comment -

            Yes. This is a user land header.

            simmonsja James A Simmons added a comment - Yes. This is a user land header.

            People

              ashehata Amir Shehata (Inactive)
              fzago Frank Zago (Inactive)
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              7 Start watching this issue

              Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: