Re: [Libguestfs] Hivex licensing question
Thanks for the very quick reply Richard. I agree that it's bizarre.
On the Hivex side, a README in the gnulib directory would be very useful;
maybe just copying over the gnulib README file would be enough.
I'll take my further confusion over to the bug-gnulib@ mailing list :)
Thanks,
Hen
On 11/26/10 10:22 AM, "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:03:05AM -0800, Yandell, Henri wrote:
> We¹re looking into using Hivex and came across something odd. While
> the license of hivex.c is LGPL 2.1, it appears to require the GPL
> 3.0 licensed gnulib package for a few minor functions ( full_read,
> full_write and c_toupper ). There are also a few GPL 3.0 build
> files.
It has always been our intention to allow hivex to be used from both
proprietary and free software, and so the library should be LGPLv2+.
The standalone programs are GPLv2+, but this should not be a problem
because you wouldn't link software to them.
I have looked at the gnulib modules that we're using in the library
(ie. lib/*) and they are:
hivex c-ctype LGPLv2+
hivex full-read LGPL
hivex full-write LGPL
(according to .gnulib/modules/* License field which is what you should
look at, *not* the comments at the top of each gnulib source file
bizarrely).
Therefore I think for the library we are OK.
Just to complete the analysis, for the programs we are using:
hivexsh c-ctype LGPLv2+
hivexsh xstrtol GPL
The Makefiles are GPL, but they don't affect the library or the
programs in any way. They constitute a separate program used to build
the software.
Rich.
CC'd to Jim: This analysis is a pain, and gnulib-tool doesn't let you
say "I want to use LGPL for this directory and GPL for this other
directory".