Hi Claudio, now, finally - sorry. Comments below.
On 2017-06-14 11:14, Claudio Scordino wrote: > Dear all, > > > > 2017-06-13 14:44 GMT+02:00 Jan Kiszka <[email protected]>: >> >> On 2017-06-12 10:09, Claudio Scordino wrote: >>> ======================================== >>> >>> Subject: Request for relicensing your contribution to Jailhouse >>> >>> >>> Dear developer, >>> >>> your name is listed among the authors of the source code within the >>> inmates/lib/ directory of Jailhouse, and therefore you are among the >>> copyright >>> holders of a part of such library. >>> >>> The library is currently licensed under GPL, meaning that it cannot be >>> linked >>> to proprietary code unless by releasing such code under GPL. This prevents >>> the >>> usage of the hypervisor in all industrial contexts where the inmate code >>> cannot >>> be disclosed. For this reason, the jailhouse community is currently >>> discussing >>> [1] the possibility/opportunity of changing the license of just the inmate >>> library to one allowing static linking of proprietary code (e.g., >>> GPL+linking >>> exception [2]). The license of the hypervisor and of the Linux driver will >>> remain untouched. >> >> As the discussion went on, it turned out to be easier to use the dual >> license GPL|BSD-2-Clause here as well, just like we did for the includes >> already. That would allow to smoothly integrate the code into >> permissively licensed projects, or proprietary ones. > > I agree. > >> Furthermore, I would state that we "want to re-license to X" and are >> requesting to confirm this step by sending a signed-off under the patch. >> See >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/jailhouse-dev/License$20and$20copyright$20fine-tuning%7Csort:relevance/jailhouse-dev/Xbg2z5ADL3Q/HNzyjoeJPEgJ >> for how this went through the last time. > > Below the new version of both the email and the patch. > > Many thanks and best regards, > > Claudio > > ============================== > > Subject: Request for relicensing your contribution to Jailhouse > CC: jan, jailhouse-list > > Dear developer, > > your name is listed among the authors of some file within the inmates/lib/ > directory of Jailhouse, and therefore you are among the copyright holders of a > part of such library. > > The library is currently licensed under GPL, meaning that it cannot be linked > to proprietary code unless by releasing such code under GPL too. This prevents > the usage of the hypervisor in all industrial contexts where the inmate code > cannot be disclosed. > > For this reason, we want to re-license the inmate library to a dual GPL|BSD-2 > license, as already done for the Jailhouse headers [1]. The license of the > other components of Jailhouse will remain untouched. > > A re-licensing of the source code needs the unanimous consent of all the > copyright holders of the library. The proposed change is pasted below. > I kindly ask you to reply to patch with your signed-off-by line if you agree > to > this change. > > Don't hesitate to contact me in case you need any further clarification. > > Many thanks for your time and your contribution. > > Best regards. > > Claudio > > [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jailhouse-dev/eskAY0BGhWc > That sounds good. > > ============================== > > From a167953212b218097207d4bbfed16c2e7058c4d7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Claudio Scordino <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 10:36:34 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] Provide the inmate library under BSD-2 license too. > > This patch does not introduce any functional change, but "only" deals > with copyright and license aspects. > > The rationale is simply that, as was already stated in COPYING, cell > inmates, AKA guests, are not derived work of Jailhouse, even if written > exclusively to run in its special environment. The inmate library > provides a set of functionalities to let inmates run on Jailhouse. > In order to avoid that people need to rewrite such library, possibly > introducing bugs or incompatibilities this way, we should rather enable > the reuse of the "official" one. Thus, it should be provided also under a > permissive license. BSD 2-clause is a well-established and easy-to-deal > with license, already used for the Jailhouse headers. > > IMPORTANT: In order to perform these license changes, we need the > agreement of all contributors to the affected files. So please reply to > the individual patches with your signed-off-by line if you agree. > The patch won't be committed until everyone involved did this. > Please also speak up if you think you or someone else has been missed in > this process. This paragraph I would replace with something that states "all contributors to the affected code have signed-off to confirm that they agree with the relicensing" - or so. The explanation that the patch is not applied prior to that can go to the introductory mail. Thanks! Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA ITP SES-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jailhouse" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
