Re: btrfs.h and btrfs-progs licensing
For crc32c you can use this one which is lgpl: https://github.com/sahlberg/libiscsi/blob/master/lib/crc32c.c You can use the generator at : http://www.ross.net/crc/download/crc_v3.txt to generate this (and others) On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:50 PM, David Sterba wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:13:50PM -0700, Andy Grover wrote: >> However, as it stands, the kernel's include/uapi/linux/btrfs.h and >> btrfs-progs are GPLv2, which means that a "libbtrfs" that is based on either >> of these might also be construed to need to be GPLv2, and any program >> *using* libbtrfs might also be construed to need to be GPLv2. > > Looking at "nm libbtrfs.a" there are rbtree and crc32c symbols included > in the library, licensed under GPLv2, the rest is pure userspace code and > the people are around to ask about relicensing. > > david > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: btrfs.h and btrfs-progs licensing
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:13:50PM -0700, Andy Grover wrote: > However, as it stands, the kernel's include/uapi/linux/btrfs.h and > btrfs-progs are GPLv2, which means that a "libbtrfs" that is based on either > of these might also be construed to need to be GPLv2, and any program > *using* libbtrfs might also be construed to need to be GPLv2. Looking at "nm libbtrfs.a" there are rbtree and crc32c symbols included in the library, licensed under GPLv2, the rest is pure userspace code and the people are around to ask about relicensing. david -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
btrfs.h and btrfs-progs licensing
Hi everybody, I'd like it to be possible to have a library that configures btrfs directly instead of using the cmdline tools. (I think Mark Fasheh and David Sterba have already done some work here.) However, as it stands, the kernel's include/uapi/linux/btrfs.h and btrfs-progs are GPLv2, which means that a "libbtrfs" that is based on either of these might also be construed to need to be GPLv2, and any program *using* libbtrfs might also be construed to need to be GPLv2. I don't think this was the intent. I think we'd be better off if we relicense btrfs-progs to LGPLv2, and dual-license the kernel btrfs.h header to GPLv2/LGPLv2 (this may not be strictly necessary, RMS says it isn't[1], but we probably want to be completely clear). This will involve getting the OK from everyone who has contributed to btrfs-progs. Yay git. If someone more closely involved with btrfs dev wanted to spearhead this I'd love it, but am willing to do it too (I *really* want a libbtrfs. :-) Any thoughts? Objections? Regards -- Andy [1] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0301.1/0362.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
