Hi,
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Stéphane Graber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Well since they're currently shipped out of tree, you're free to do
> whatever you want. GPLv2 code is allowed to link with an LGPLv2.1+
> library so your code isn't in violation of LXC's license.
>
> However this very likely m
Hi,
Well since they're currently shipped out of tree, you're free to do
whatever you want. GPLv2 code is allowed to link with an LGPLv2.1+
library so your code isn't in violation of LXC's license.
However this very likely means that any software using your Go bindings
will have to be GPLv2 in ord
Hey Stéphane,
I realized that Go bindings are licensed as GPLv2. I've no objection to
re-licensing them with LGPL v2.1 but wanted to clarify it with you first.
Should I go ahead and change the license or is it ok to stay with GPLv2?
Best,
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Stéphane Graber wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 03:46:45PM -0400, Stéphane Graber wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 03:42:03PM -0400, Stéphane Graber wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > First of all, sorry for the boring e-mail, nobody likes to deal with
> > licenses but it's an unfortunate thing we have to deal with from time to
>
2013/8/30 Stéphane Graber :
> Serge already did all of his and Dwight was contacted about lua-lxc/core.c
Thanks for the quick response!
- Thomas
--
Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more!
D
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 03:42:03PM -0400, Stéphane Graber wrote:
> Hello,
>
> First of all, sorry for the boring e-mail, nobody likes to deal with
> licenses but it's an unfortunate thing we have to deal with from time to
> time.
>
> Thomas Moschny reported some inconsistencies in the way LXC is
