[ltt-dev] lttng-ust: Inconsistent license info in manual and source code?

[Cui, Dexuan]

Nils Carlson wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Cui, Dexuan wrote:
> 
>> Cui, Dexuan wrote:
>>> Pierre-Marc Fournier wrote:
>>>> On 08/12/2010 11:51 PM, Cui, Dexuan wrote:
>>>>> Hi, in the latest release 0.5 of lttng-ust
>>>>> (http://lttng.org/files/ust/releases/ust-0.5.tar.gz), I found in
>>>>> the source directory, doc/manual/ust.html says
>>>>> ustctl/libustcmd/ustd are licensed as GPL v2, but the source
>>>>> codes of ustctl/libustcmd/ustd have a LGPLv2.1+ header.  I checked
>>>>> git://git.dorsal.polymtl.ca/git/ust.git and it has the same issue.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Could somebody please clarify the inconsistency? Thanks!
>>>> 
>>>> The licenses in the file have priority. The manual needs to be
>>>> updated. 
>>>> 
>>>> pmf
>>> 
>>> Thanks a lot for the quick clarification! :-)
>> 
>> Hi, today I checked the release of 0.7 and the latest's ust.git.
>> Looks this inconsistency in manual and source cde is still there? Do
>> we have a plan to fix it?  
>> 
>> And, the COPYING only mentions "GPLv2 or any later version", but
>> doesn't mention LGPL at all. 
>> And, the files in ust.git/snprintf/ has a BSD license header.
>> So, what's the "overall" license of lttng-ust -- "LGPL2.1+ & BSD"?
>> 
> 
> LPGPL2.1 for the library parts.
> 
> LGPL is more restrictive than BSD so only the specifically BSD
> licensed parts may be used under a BSD license.
> 
> I can try to fix the license text in the coming release.
> 
> /Nils
Hi Nils,
I see. 

And could you also please answer the COPYING question --  "the COPYING only mentions "GPLv2 or any later version", but  doesn't mention LGPL at all"?
Should we also fix the COPYING? I think it should only mention LGPL rather than GPL. Am I correct?

Thanks,
 -- Dexuan