[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] Using dlls for Windows provided in http://libvirt.org/sources/win32_experimental/Libvirt-0.8.7-2.exe



Hello Daniel,

	thank you for your answer and statement.

With best regards,
Monika
--

Monika Schnizer
Software Development
FTS TSP x86 E SW4

FUJITSU 
Fujitsu TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS  GmbH  	
Domagk-Str.28, 80807 Munich, Germany
Tel:  +49 (89) 3222 2287
Fax:  +49 (89) 3222 329 2287
Email:  Monika Schnizer ts fujitsu com
Web:   http://ts.fujitsu.com
Company Details: de.ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel P. Berrange [mailto:berrange redhat com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 5:40 PM
To: Schnizer, Monika
Cc: libvir-list redhat com
Subject: Re: [libvirt] Using dlls for Windows provided in http://libvirt.org/sources/win32_experimental/Libvirt-0.8.7-2.exe

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 05:30:45PM +0100, Schnizer, Monika wrote:
> Dear Daniel,
> 
> 	thank you very much for your quick answer.
> 
> Yes, I have read LGPL in detail.
> And to be honest, I have doubts that we can proceed in the way proposed.
> Some discussions cannot simply done with legal, as all LGPL does have 
> aspects that are more technical. So in fact technical and legal 
> knowledge do have to be combined.
> 
> So let me outline, why I do have doubts that we can proceed in this way:
> a) If we use that installation executable, we need to have exactly those sources,
>    including the scripts that create the executable.

Yes, that is correct.

> b) As soon as we take only parts of the complete work, e.g. take
>    only some libraries out of it, then under strict interpretation
>    of the LGPL, we would create a work based on the orginal work.
>    The original work in this case being the installation executable,
>    all ist binaries and sources.
> c) Having a work based on the original code the LGPL is very strict:
>    We could only distribute it separately from our other SW, in order
>    to avoid a strong copy-left-effect.
> 
> The question now is:
> 	do we interprete LGPL too strict?

I think you are about right.

> I suppose that the following approach is conform to LGPL:
> Method 2:
> a) we download sources for libvirt.
> b) we compile themselves in our Windows environment
> c) we then distribute the binaries with our application.
> Of course we do the following:
> 	we tell that we use libvirt
> 	provide the license
> 	provide copy right information
> 	tell the customer that he has the right to receive sources (for three years after last distribution)
> 	and/or provide sources together with binary.

This is the approach pretty much all Linux distributions follow, because by building everything from source yourself, you can ensure that you are in possession of all the pieces used to create the binaries & thus be able to distribute them for license compliance. If in doubt, I'd go for this approach of building everything from scratch.

Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]