From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56929) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1csmKM-00046j-ID for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 04:18:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1csmKI-0002qz-KD for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 04:18:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:50230) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1csmKI-0002qr-HU for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 04:18:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1csmKI-0004u6-CR for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 04:18:02 -0400 Subject: bug#26256: [PATCH 5/6] gnu: Add userspace-rcu. Resent-Message-ID: From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) References: <20170325203017.14931-1-mbakke@fastmail.com> <20170325203017.14931-5-mbakke@fastmail.com> <87r31jj5tn.fsf@gnu.org> <877f3awn17.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <87mvc6uy31.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <87h92euw2y.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:17:37 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87h92euw2y.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> (Marius Bakke's message of "Tue, 28 Mar 2017 01:41:09 +0200") Message-ID: <87tw6d7r32.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Marius Bakke Cc: 26256@debbugs.gnu.org Marius Bakke skribis: > Sorry for spamming this discussion, but it's something that I haven't > seen discussed before and it's good to clarify a few of these points. > > Ceph is also a prime example of a complex package covering lots of > licenses. Some of the ".so" files installed by Ceph are produced by > BSD-style code. However, they link to the main ceph libraries, which are > LGPL2.1. IIUC, LGPL2.1 "trumps" BSD here because of the strong copyleft. Right, copyleft licenses =E2=80=9Cwin=E2=80=9D over the non-copyleft ones. > Ceph also installs some erasure code ".so" files that do *not* link > against Ceph (as verified with readelf and ldd). They are covered by a > BSD-style license. These should then be mentioned separately, methinks, > because they are installed by this package and used by some of the > (L)GPL code. Yes, that makes sense to me. > Most of the Python libraries in Ceph are actually LGPL2.1+. These use > the main Ceph libraries, which are LGPL2.1 (no plus). AFAIU, the latter > still "wins", or should LGPL2.1+ be mentioned separately? I=E2=80=99d mention just LGPL2.1 since it =E2=80=9Cwins=E2=80=9D over LGPL2= .1+, but with a comment explaining the situation. (There=E2=80=99ll be a lot to read in that file! :-)) > Perhaps the manual could be improved with a few clarification points, > although it's a complex issue that will vary on a case-by-case basis. Indeed! We also need clarifications on when to use =E2=80=9C+=E2=80=9D on = GNU licenses, since it=E2=80=99s never obvious to newcomers. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.