[libvirt] Using dlls for Windows provided in http://libvirt.org/sources/win32_experimental/Libvirt-0.8.7-2.exe
Hello libvirt-users, could anybody tell me, whether we could use dlls provided in the experimental package for windows, and distribute it with our application. We would do the following: a) Install the executable from http://libvirt.org/sources/win32_experimental/Libvirt-0.8.7-2.exe on our production machine. b) Add the dlls to the setup of our application c) Install the dlls on the customer's system in some location named /<product root>/lib. Questions: - do we violate the LGPL by doing so? - does anybody have better suggestions on how to provide the functionality to the customer? - who could tell me how to contact the copyright owners, in order to directly discuss this issue with them. Let me thank in advance for any any information. With best regards, -- 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<http://ts.fujitsu.com/> Company Details: de.ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 04:15:41PM +0100, Schnizer, Monika wrote:
Hello libvirt-users,
could anybody tell me, whether we could use dlls provided in the experimental package for windows, and distribute it with our application.
We would do the following: a) Install the executable from http://libvirt.org/sources/win32_experimental/Libvirt-0.8.7-2.exe on our production machine. b) Add the dlls to the setup of our application c) Install the dlls on the customer's system in some location named /<product root>/lib.
Questions: - do we violate the LGPL by doing so? - does anybody have better suggestions on how to provide the functionality to the customer? - who could tell me how to contact the copyright owners, in order to directly discuss this issue with them.
All we can really say is that you should carefully read the LGPL and make sure you are in compliance with the conditions it defines. In particular wrt providing customers the source code which exactly matches that used to build the binaries they receive. If you need detailed legal advice on whether your application / distribution method will be in compliance with the libvirt LGPL licensing, I'd strongly suggest that you seek assistance from your company's own software compliance legal team. Regards, 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 :|
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. 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 currently wonder whom to address with such refined questions concerning LGPL interpretation. Would you have an idea? Some open source institution? 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. Even if nobody could answer 100%, the copyright holders could give us the right to extract dlls from the installation executable. That is why I would like to contact them. With best regards, Monika Schnizer -- 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 4:47 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 04:15:41PM +0100, Schnizer, Monika wrote:
Hello libvirt-users,
could anybody tell me, whether we could use dlls provided in the experimental package for windows, and distribute it with our application.
We would do the following: a) Install the executable from http://libvirt.org/sources/win32_experimental/Libvirt-0.8.7-2.exe on our production machine. b) Add the dlls to the setup of our application c) Install the dlls on the customer's system in some location named /<product root>/lib.
Questions: - do we violate the LGPL by doing so? - does anybody have better suggestions on how to provide the functionality to the customer? - who could tell me how to contact the copyright owners, in order to directly discuss this issue with them.
All we can really say is that you should carefully read the LGPL and make sure you are in compliance with the conditions it defines. In particular wrt providing customers the source code which exactly matches that used to build the binaries they receive. If you need detailed legal advice on whether your application / distribution method will be in compliance with the libvirt LGPL licensing, I'd strongly suggest that you seek assistance from your company's own software compliance legal team. Regards, 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 :|
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 :|
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 :|
participants (2)
-
Daniel P. Berrange -
Schnizer, Monika