OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Users » Openvirtuozzo kernel patch license questions
Openvirtuozzo kernel patch license questions [message #36] Wed, 07 September 2005 06:59 Go to next message
Christian Aichinger is currently offline  Christian Aichinger
Messages: 2
Registered: September 2005
Junior Member
From: openvirtuozzo.org
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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
dim is currently offline  dim
Messages: 344
Registered: August 2005
Senior Member
From: openvirtuozzo.org
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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Christian Aichinger is currently offline  Christian Aichinger
Messages: 2
Registered: September 2005
Junior Member
From: openvirtuozzo.org
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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kir is currently offline  kir
Messages: 1645
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Senior Member

From: openvirtuozzo.org
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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
rpatrick is currently offline  rpatrick
Messages: 3
Registered: September 2005
Junior Member
From: *DOE.GOV
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

Re: Openvirtuozzo kernel patch license questions [message #166 is a reply to message #59] Sat, 24 September 2005 10:15 Go to previous message
dev is currently offline  dev
Messages: 1693
Registered: September 2005
Location: Moscow
Senior Member

From: *7ka.mipt.ru
Patrick, we fixed this in 038 kernel as follows:
we placed COPYING.SWsoft at the root of kernel with GPL license and added "Licensed under terms of COPYING.SWsoft" to every file.
Hope it is ok now.


http://static.openvz.org/userbars/openvz-developer.png
Previous Topic: WARNING: No module aacraid found for kernel 2.6.8-022stab034.1, continuing anyway
Next Topic: OpenVZ + VPS +dhclient
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Nov 16 14:23:36 GMT 2018