Licensing of libaudit and libauparse
Hi,
The README file in the audit userspace package says:
LICENSE
=======
The audit daemon is released as GPL'd code. The
audit daemon's libraries libaudit.* and libauparse.* are released under LGPL so that it may be linked with 3rd party software.
However don't these libraries contain code from this file
https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-userspace/blob/master/lib/strsplit.c
which states its license is GPLv2+?
Richard
Quoted 10 lines · EDT Richard Fontana
Hi,
The README file in the audit userspace package says:
LICENSE
=======
The audit daemon is released as GPL'd code. The
audit daemon's libraries libaudit.* and libauparse.* are released under LGPL so that it may be linked with 3rd party software.
Quoted 3 lines
However don't these libraries contain code from this file
https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-userspace/blob/master/lib/strsplit.c
which states its license is GPLv2+?
Yes, that looks like a copy and paste mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. Anything in:
https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-userspace/blob/master/lib/
https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-userspace/blob/master/auparse/
https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-userspace/blob/master/bindings/
is intended to LGPL. Would replacing the comment at the beginning of the file be sufficient to fix this issue?
Thanks,
-Steve
Quoted 18 lines · Steve Grubb
Quoted 10 lines · EDT Richard Fontana
Hi,
The README file in the audit userspace package says:
LICENSE
=======
The audit daemon is released as GPL'd code. The
audit daemon's libraries libaudit.* and libauparse.* are released under LGPL so that it may be linked with 3rd party software.Quoted 3 lines
However don't these libraries contain code from this file
https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-userspace/blob/master/lib/strsplit.c
which states its license is GPLv2+?Yes, that looks like a copy and paste mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. Anything in:
Quoted 6 lines
https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-userspace/blob/master/lib/
https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-userspace/blob/master/auparse/
https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-userspace/blob/master/bindings/is intended to LGPL. Would replacing the comment at the beginning of the file be sufficient to fix this issue?
It may depend on the history of the file. If you were the only person who contributed to it, yes. But if anyone else contributed to it, and let's say the contributions were not copyrighted by Red Hat, and the contributions were sufficiently nontrivial, then maybe we'd have to get permission from such other contributors to change the indicated license of the file.
Richard
Quoted 26 lines · EDT Richard Fontana
Quoted 18 lines · Steve Grubb
Quoted 9 lines · EDT Richard Fontana
Hi,
The README file in the audit userspace package says:
LICENSE
=======
The audit daemon is released as GPL'd code. The
audit daemon's libraries libaudit.* and libauparse.* are released under LGPL so that it may be linked with 3rd party software.Quoted 4 lines
However don't these libraries contain code from this file
https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-userspace/blob/master/lib/strsplit.
c
which states its license is GPLv2+?Yes, that looks like a copy and paste mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. Anything in:
Quoted 6 lines
https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-userspace/blob/master/lib/
https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-userspace/blob/master/auparse/
https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-userspace/blob/master/bindings/is intended to LGPL. Would replacing the comment at the beginning of the file be sufficient to fix this issue?
Quoted 6 lines
It may depend on the history of the file. If you were the only person who contributed to it, yes. But if anyone else contributed to it, and let's say the contributions were not copyrighted by Red Hat, and the contributions were sufficiently nontrivial, then maybe we'd have to get permission from such other contributors to change the indicated license of the file.
OK. Good to know. I am the sole contributor to that file. I also checked and fixed some new files in auparse/ to which I am also the sole contributor at the same time. Everything is good in git and the next release should take care of this issue.
Thanks for noticing this.
-Steve
Quoted 11 lines · Steve Grubb
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 3 lines
is intended to LGPL. Would replacing the comment at the beginning of the file be sufficient to fix this issue?
It may depend on the history of the file. If you were the only person who contributed to it, yes. But if anyone else contributed to it, and let's say the contributions were not copyrighted by Red Hat, and the contributions were sufficiently nontrivial, then maybe we'd have to get permission from such other contributors to change the indicated license of the file.
Quoted 4 lines
OK. Good to know. I am the sole contributor to that file. I also checked and fixed some new files in auparse/ to which I am also the sole contributor at the same time. Everything is good in git and the next release should take care of this issue.
Okay, thank you!
Richard