On 03/12/2013 10:15 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > As far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with leaving the file as > BSD licensed instead of trying to insist that it be LGPL. The block > layer will still be [L]GPL because of other files linked together, but > there is nothing inherently wrong with linking a BSD file into an [L]GPL > product. In other words, if you are okay with keeping the existing > looser BSD license on this file only, it still won't change the license > of the overall block layer, and it would save you the hassle of tracking > down earlier authors to ask for a relicense.
Another alternative is to have two licenses covering appropriate portions of the file. For example, aio-win32.c has two licenses: a GPL2-only license for older history, and a GPLv2+ license for all new changes. In your case, you might be able to write a license that states that contents of code copied from other files is BSD, but all new contributions are LGPLv2+. But again, this is something where I suggest you get an official answer from a maintainer, and not just opinions from a random reviewer, regarding what approach you should take to licensing your code motion. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
