[libvirt] Using dlls for Windows provided in http://libvirt.org/sources/win32_experimental/Libvirt-0.8.7-2.exe
9:15 a.m.
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(a)ts.fujitsu.com
Web: http://ts.fujitsu.com<http://ts.fujitsu.com/>
Company Details: de.ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html
9:47 a.m.
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 :|
10:30 a.m.
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(a)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(a)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 :|
10:39 a.m.
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 :|
10:47 a.m.
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(a)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(a)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 :|
5039
days inactive
5039
days old
4 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Daniel P. Berrange -
Schnizer, Monika