On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 08:16:34PM +0800, Liang Guo wrote: > Hi, Christophe > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Christophe Fergeau <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Liang, > > > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 04:45:33PM +0800, Liang Guo wrote: > >> Libcacard is licensed under GPL3, spice-gtk is licensed under LGPL2.1, > >> but spice-gtk may call libcacard, Should this cause any legal problem > >> ? > > > Actually, there are 2 differently licensed libcacard code bases, there is > > the standalone libcacard which you are referring to and which is indeed > > GPLv3, but there's also a libcacard included in qemu, which will be used in > > the future, and which is licensed as LGPLv2.1 or later according to the > > header in each source file. > > We really should get rid of the standalone libcacard, this would clear up > > this kind of confusions ;) At the very least, I think we can change the > > GPLv3 to the more permissive LGPLv2.1+ since both code bases have the same > > origin. > > > > Christophe > > > Thank you for your reply, will these two licacard be merged ? it is not > nessary > to have two library do the same thing and have the same name. > > BTW: most *.[ch] in libcacard downloaded from spice-space don't have > copyright header. >
The next libcacard that will be released will be based on qemu/libcacard, which is what's being worked on. I think it has copyright headers on each file. > > -- > Liang GUO > http://bluestone.cublog.cn > _______________________________________________ > Spice-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
