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

[Pierre-Marc Fournier]

On 09/30/2010 06:49 AM, Cui, Dexuan wrote:
> 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?
>

The COPYING file should be fixed. It's indeed confusing.

We already have a lgpl-2.1.txt file. We could add a gpl-2.txt file. 
After that, COPYING could contain information about the license of each 
module, and refer to the specific *.txt files for the license text. If 
would likely become the official source from which the corresponding 
section of the manual would be updated.

pmf