On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:10:36PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > > Now, the web front-end is composed of MIT licensed pages and the one > GPLv2+ licensed page. MIT and GPLv2+ are compatible, so this is not a > problem. In my opinion, the web front-end is not a derived work of the > libganglia code (doesn't take code from it, doesn't link to the > library), so there is no concern around licensing incompatibility > between the ASL 1.1 portion of the libganglia license and the GPLv2+ php > page.
This is great news, and that is also supported by the fact that the ganglia web frontend was originally and independent package (before 3.0) and so has cleared at least for me any doubts about the legality of distributing it with the upcoming 3.1 release. > However, if you disagree and think that the web front-end is a derived > work, you would need to either relicense (or replace) the code under the > ASL 1.1 license or the GPLv2+ license to resolve the conflict. Probably a nice thing to do for a future release and just so every possible interpretation of our license mix is covered as you suggested. > A few additional points worth mentioning: > > 1. A large chunk of the code in that tarball does not have license > attribution in the code itself. The only reliable way to determine the > license of code is to have the license attribution in the source file > itself (usually in the initial comment header). I would highly encourage > you to do this for all of your source code as soon as possible. Remember > that code moves often, and people forget what "COPYING" said (or even > which "COPYING" it came from). Agree, and definitely something I was looking forward to after we are done with this release. > 2. You should correct the "BSD" license references in your code, Agree, using "MIT" is definitely more accurate, but in our defense "BSD" is a confusing license name anyway as it can really mean different things, some of which are functional equivalent to a "MIT" license, like the "2 clause BSD" and "MIT" was after all based in BSD. There is also the fact that this all was started as part of a UC Berkeley project and therefore Matt might had been playing the regents a prank when he used instead a "MIT" license and put the regent names inside ;) and so, since he is still at shooting distance from Berkeley, calling it BSD helps avoid any animosities directed at him or us. In any case since the original intent was to use a "3 clause BSD" license from what I recall and that is functionally equivalent to a "MIT" license I don't think that to be considered a showstopper anyway but sometime to work for in the near future. > it is clearly not BSD licensed (with the exception of the freebsd metrics > code). and the other "BSD" metric code which is also under the "Original BSD (AKA 4 clause BSD)" license and that we will hopefully replace soon with something more modern as well. > Hope that helps, Thanks a lot for your great advice, we surely own you one, and take for granted the next time we meet that beer is on me. Carlo ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW! Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project, along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08 _______________________________________________ Ganglia-developers mailing list Ganglia-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ganglia-developers
