Re: [ceph-users] RFC: relicence Ceph LGPL-2.1 code as LGPL-2.1 or LGPL-3.0
On Fri, 10 May 2019, Sage Weil wrote: > Hi everyone, > > -- What -- > > The Ceph Leadership Team[1] is proposing a change of license from > *LGPL-2.1* to *LGPL-2.1 or LGPL-3.0* (dual license). The specific changes > are described by this pull request: > > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/22446 > > If you are a Ceph developer who has contributed code to Ceph and object to > this change of license, please let us know, either by replying to this > message or by commenting on that pull request. > > Our plan is to leave the issue open for comment for some period of time > and, if no objections are raised that cannot be adequately addressed (via > persuasion, code replacement, or whatever) we will move forward with the > change. We've heard no concerns about this change, so I just merged the pull request. Thank you, everyone! Robin suggested that we also add SPDX tags to all files. IIUC those look like this: // SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1 or LGPL-3.0 This sounds like a fine idea. Any takers? Note that this can't replace the COPYING and debian/copyright files, that latter of which at least is needed by Debian. But additional and explicit license notifications in each file sounds like a good thing. Thanks! sage ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] RFC: relicence Ceph LGPL-2.1 code as LGPL-2.1 or LGPL-3.0
On Fri, 10 May 2019, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 02:27:11PM +, Sage Weil wrote: > > If you are a Ceph developer who has contributed code to Ceph and object to > > this change of license, please let us know, either by replying to this > > message or by commenting on that pull request. > Am I correct in reading the diff that only a very small number of files > did not already have the 'or later' clause of *GPL in effect? To the contrary, I think one file (the COPYING file) has one line as a catch-all for everything (that isn't a special case) which is changing from 2.1 to 2.1 or 3. https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/22446/files#diff-7116ef0705885343c9e1b2171a06be0eR6 > As a slight tangent, can we get SPDX tags on files rather than this > hard-to-parse text? (/me googles SPDX) Sure? The current format is based on the Debian copyright file format, which seemed appropriate at the time. Happy to take patches that add more appropriate annotations... sage ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] RFC: relicence Ceph LGPL-2.1 code as LGPL-2.1 or LGPL-3.0
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 02:27:11PM +, Sage Weil wrote: > If you are a Ceph developer who has contributed code to Ceph and object to > this change of license, please let us know, either by replying to this > message or by commenting on that pull request. Am I correct in reading the diff that only a very small number of files did not already have the 'or later' clause of *GPL in effect? As a slight tangent, can we get SPDX tags on files rather than this hard-to-parse text? -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Treasurer E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85 GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
[ceph-users] RFC: relicence Ceph LGPL-2.1 code as LGPL-2.1 or LGPL-3.0
Hi everyone, -- What -- The Ceph Leadership Team[1] is proposing a change of license from *LGPL-2.1* to *LGPL-2.1 or LGPL-3.0* (dual license). The specific changes are described by this pull request: https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/22446 If you are a Ceph developer who has contributed code to Ceph and object to this change of license, please let us know, either by replying to this message or by commenting on that pull request. Our plan is to leave the issue open for comment for some period of time and, if no objections are raised that cannot be adequately addressed (via persuasion, code replacement, or whatever) we will move forward with the change. -- Why -- The primary motivation to relicense is a desire to integrate with projects that are licensed under the Apache License version 2.0. Although opinions vary, there are some who argue the the LGPL-2.1 and Apache-2.0 licenses are not fully compatible. We would like to avoid the ambiguity and potential for controversy. Projects we would like to consume that are Apache-2.0 licensed include RocksDB, Seastar, OpenSSL (which is in the process of relicensing to Apache-2.0), and Swagger (swagger.io). Note that some of these are (or could be) dynamically linked or are consumed via a high-level language, and may or may not require a change to LGPL-3.0, but providing the option for LGPL-3.0 will avoid any uncertainty. A few other source files are already incorporated into Ceph that claim an Apache-2.0 license: src/common/deleter.h src/common/sstring.h src/include/cpp-btree The Ceph developers would further like to provide a license option that is more modern than the current LGPL-2.1. LGPL-3.0 includes updated, clarified language around several issues and is widely considered more modern, superior license. Thank you! [1] http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/governance/#ceph-leadership-team ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
