| Openvirtuozzo kernel patch license questions [message #36] |
Wed, 07 September 2005 06:59  |
Christian Aichinger
Messages: 2
Registered: September 2005
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi,
on your homepage you state:
The Open Virtuozzo kernel is based on the Linux kernel,
distributed under the GPL terms, so it is licensed under GNU GPL
version 2.
In the kernel patch you distribute (patch-022stab032-core) several
files (all that you added to the kernel tree) have the following
header though:
(C) SWsoft, 2005, http://www.sw-soft.com, All rights reserved.
"All rights reserved" doesn't look very GPL compatible to me, and in
particular you didn't really state anywhere that the patch itself
may be freely redistributed (on your homepage you just talk about
the patched kernel).
Could you please clarify these issues, probably by replacing all
those "All rights reserved" statements with the proper GPL statement
("This file is free software...")?
Cheers,
Christian Aichinger
PS: Please CC: me as I'm not subscribed to this list.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Openvirtuozzo kernel patch license questions [message #37 is a reply to message #36] |
Wed, 07 September 2005 07:41  |
dim
Messages: 344
Registered: August 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi,
GPL doesn't require to post 'free software' statement in each file, but
require to provide it with each Program copy. So, I think we'll fix this
issue by means of SWSOFT_COPYING file in our SRPM and tarballs.
Anyway, we'll fix this issue somehow. Thanks for your point.
> Hi,
> on your homepage you state:
> The Open Virtuozzo kernel is based on the Linux kernel,
> distributed under the GPL terms, so it is licensed under GNU GPL
> version 2.
>
> In the kernel patch you distribute (patch-022stab032-core) several
> files (all that you added to the kernel tree) have the following
> header though:
> (C) SWsoft, 2005, http://www.sw-soft.com, All rights reserved.
>
> "All rights reserved" doesn't look very GPL compatible to me, and in
> particular you didn't really state anywhere that the patch itself
> may be freely redistributed (on your homepage you just talk about
> the patched kernel).
>
> Could you please clarify these issues, probably by replacing all
> those "All rights reserved" statements with the proper GPL statement
> ("This file is free software...")?
>
> Cheers,
> Christian Aichinger
>
> PS: Please CC: me as I'm not subscribed to this list.
--
Thanks,
Dmitry.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Openvirtuozzo kernel patch license questions [message #41 is a reply to message #37] |
Wed, 07 September 2005 09:42 |
Christian Aichinger
Messages: 2
Registered: September 2005
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 11:48:01AM +0400, Dmitry Mishin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> GPL doesn't require to post 'free software' statement in each file, but
> require to provide it with each Program copy. So, I think we'll fix this
> issue by means of SWSOFT_COPYING file in our SRPM and tarballs.
> Anyway, we'll fix this issue somehow. Thanks for your point.
Just shipping a COPYING file is not enough. You need a definitive
statement somewhere that the patches (and RPMs, ..) can be used under
the terms of the GPL.
It's probably not strictly necessary to include the GPL header in
every file, but stating "All rights reserved" in every file seems a
bit contradictory to me.
In this case I think the file-specific license (all rights reserved)
overrides the global "use this under the GPL" statement on your
homepage (unless you make it clear there that these file-specific
restrictions don't apply).
Just removing the "All rights reserved" statements from the file
(or replacing them with a "This is part of GPL'ed software") would
be the easiest way IMHO.
Cheers,
Christian Aichinger
PS: Please keep me CC'ed in this thread.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Openvirtuozzo kernel patch license questions [message #42 is a reply to message #41] |
Thu, 08 September 2005 12:22 |
|
|
Christian Aichinger wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 11:48:01AM +0400, Dmitry Mishin wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>GPL doesn't require to post 'free software' statement in each file, but
>>require to provide it with each Program copy. So, I think we'll fix this
>>issue by means of SWSOFT_COPYING file in our SRPM and tarballs.
>>Anyway, we'll fix this issue somehow. Thanks for your point.
>>
>>
>
>Just shipping a COPYING file is not enough. You need a definitive
>statement somewhere that the patches (and RPMs, ..) can be used under
>the terms of the GPL.
>
>It's probably not strictly necessary to include the GPL header in
>every file, but stating "All rights reserved" in every file seems a
>bit contradictory to me.
>
>In this case I think the file-specific license (all rights reserved)
>overrides the global "use this under the GPL" statement on your
>homepage (unless you make it clear there that these file-specific
>restrictions don't apply).
>
>Just removing the "All rights reserved" statements from the file
>(or replacing them with a "This is part of GPL'ed software") would
>be the easiest way IMHO.
>
>
Chris,
We might just add "Licensed under GNU GPL version 2" statement right
after SWsoft's copyright statement in our next kernel release.
As you may notice, some files in vanilla 2.6 kernel also have "All
rights reserved." thing (I found 702 such files in
linux-2.6.12-gentoo-r6 kernel sources), and some of those files are
GPLed (while some others are not - those are mostly device drivers), so
this (having 'all rights reserved' and 'covered by gnu gpl') is not
contradictory. Look into kernel/auditsc.c for example (I used version
from 2.6.12).
Regards,
Kir.
---
Kir Kolyshkin <kir@sw.ru> ICQ 7551596
|
|
|
|
| Re: Openvirtuozzo kernel patch license questions [message #59 is a reply to message #42] |
Sat, 10 September 2005 19:57 |
rpatrick
Messages: 3
Registered: September 2005
|
Junior Member |
|
|
I agree that stating "All Rights Reserved" is allowable as long as there's a reference to the GPL. The GPL allows the end-user to redistribute and modify.
License & Copyright are two different things.
Reserving all rights and then allowing the end-user to use the software under the terms of the GPL license is commonly done if you review a lot of source code (as referenced above in the Linux kernel). Search around, there are many "All Rights Reserved" in the copyright notices of free, GPL-licensed, software.
From gnu.org:
"most free software is not in the public domain; it is copyrighted, and the copyright holders have legally given permission for everyone to use it in freedom, using a free software license."
"Part of releasing a program under the GPL is writing a copyright notice in your own name (assuming you are the copyright holder). The GPL requires all copies to carry an appropriate copyright notice."
The how-to is here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
[Updated on: Sat, 10 September 2005 20:08] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
