Hi Tom,
Recently I already asked for your permission to relicense the GSM 05.03 code from OpenBTS, and now I am contacting you with the same purpose. I am going to move your optimized Viterbi decoder forward, but currently it is licensed under the LGPL v2.1 (or later). To avoid license mix within the core Osmocom library, it would be better to relicense your code to the same one, if you agree.
So, the question is: do you agree to relicense your code under the GPLv2-or-later?
With best regards, Vadim Yanitskiy.
Hi Vadim and Tom,
as LGPL v2.1-or-later is compatible with GPLv2-or-later, there is not really a strict requirement for license compatibiltiy reasons. Any application that links against the GPL-v2-or-later libosmocore has no license compatibility issues with LGPLv2-or-later, as GPLv2 is the stricter of the two licenses anyway.
Still, it is of course good if the entire library is covered under one license, and people don't have to research and follow different license terms for each file. Most importantly, we don't want people to assume all of the librray is LGPL, which is clearly not our intention.
Regards, Harald
Harald and Vadim,
I agree that it is preferable to cover the entire library under a single license. The benefits of a single license outweigh the limited value added by having a few files under the less restrictive license.
I approve the re-licensing of the code contained within the optimized Viterbi patchset "core/conv: Fast Viterbi decoding", originally posted to the OpenBSC mailing list on April 28, 2014, from LGPLv2.1 or later to GPLv2 or later.
-TT
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Harald Welte laforge@gnumonks.org wrote:
Hi Vadim and Tom,
as LGPL v2.1-or-later is compatible with GPLv2-or-later, there is not really a strict requirement for license compatibiltiy reasons. Any application that links against the GPL-v2-or-later libosmocore has no license compatibility issues with LGPLv2-or-later, as GPLv2 is the stricter of the two licenses anyway.
Still, it is of course good if the entire library is covered under one license, and people don't have to research and follow different license terms for each file. Most importantly, we don't want people to assume all of the librray is LGPL, which is clearly not our intention.
Regards, Harald
--
- Harald Welte laforge@gnumonks.org http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
-
Harald Welte -
Tom Tsou -
Vadim Yanitskiy