liblxc has always been meant to be LGPLv2.1+ as reflected by the many
downstreams projects and bindings which are themselves under LGPLv2.1+ or other
licenses which would be incompatible with linking against a GPLv2+ library.
It's pretty normal for a library to be LGPL while binaries are GPL as a GPL
library would only ever be usable by other GPL-only projects, which isn't the
case for very many of the liblxc downstreams.
The issue here is really carelessness. None of those GPL headers were put there
intentionally, instead being wrongly copy/pasted from other parts of the
codebase which is indeed intended to be GPLv2+. This is also made clear in our
CONTRIBUTING file in this repository:
Licensing for new files:
------------------------
LXC is made of files shipped under a few different licenses.
Anything that ends up being part of the LXC library needs to be released
under LGPLv2.1+ or a license compatible with it (though the latter will
only be accepted for cases where the code originated elsewhere and was
imported into LXC).
Language bindings for the libraries need to be released under LGPLv2.1+.
Anything else (non-libraries) needs to be Free Software and needs to be
allowed to link with LGPLv2.1+ code (if needed). LXC upstream prefers
LGPLv2.1+ or GPLv2 for those.
When introducing a new file into the project, please make sure it has a
copyright header making clear under which license it's being released
and if it doesn't match the criteria described above, please explain
your decision on the lxc-devel mailing-list when submitting your patch.
This is intended to switch over files to LGPLv2.1+ to which end we have
collected ACKs from relevant people.
/* Affected People */
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Donghwa Jeong <dh48.jeong@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Acked-by: Donghwa Jeong <dh48.jeong@samsung.com>
liblxc has always been meant to be LGPLv2.1+ as reflected by the many
downstreams projects and bindings which are themselves under LGPLv2.1+ or other
licenses which would be incompatible with linking against a GPLv2+ library.
It's pretty normal for a library to be LGPL while binaries are GPL as a GPL
library would only ever be usable by other GPL-only projects, which isn't the
case for very many of the liblxc downstreams.
The issue here is really carelessness. None of those GPL headers were put there
intentionally, instead being wrongly copy/pasted from other parts of the
codebase which is indeed intended to be GPLv2+. This is also made clear in our
CONTRIBUTING file in this repository:
Licensing for new files:
------------------------
LXC is made of files shipped under a few different licenses.
Anything that ends up being part of the LXC library needs to be released
under LGPLv2.1+ or a license compatible with it (though the latter will
only be accepted for cases where the code originated elsewhere and was
imported into LXC).
Language bindings for the libraries need to be released under LGPLv2.1+.
Anything else (non-libraries) needs to be Free Software and needs to be
allowed to link with LGPLv2.1+ code (if needed). LXC upstream prefers
LGPLv2.1+ or GPLv2 for those.
When introducing a new file into the project, please make sure it has a
copyright header making clear under which license it's being released
and if it doesn't match the criteria described above, please explain
your decision on the lxc-devel mailing-list when submitting your patch.
This is intended to switch over files to LGPLv2.1+ to which end we have
collected ACKs from relevant people.
/* Affected People */
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Donghwa Jeong <dh48.jeong@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Acked-by: Donghwa Jeong <dh48.jeong@samsung.com>
liblxc has always been meant to be LGPLv2.1+ as reflected by the many
downstreams projects and bindings which are themselves under LGPLv2.1+ or other
licenses which would be incompatible with linking against a GPLv2+ library.
It's pretty normal for a library to be LGPL while binaries are GPL as a GPL
library would only ever be usable by other GPL-only projects, which isn't the
case for very many of the liblxc downstreams.
The issue here is really carelessness. None of those GPL headers were put there
intentionally, instead being wrongly copy/pasted from other parts of the
codebase which is indeed intended to be GPLv2+. This is also made clear in our
CONTRIBUTING file in this repository:
Licensing for new files:
------------------------
LXC is made of files shipped under a few different licenses.
Anything that ends up being part of the LXC library needs to be released
under LGPLv2.1+ or a license compatible with it (though the latter will
only be accepted for cases where the code originated elsewhere and was
imported into LXC).
Language bindings for the libraries need to be released under LGPLv2.1+.
Anything else (non-libraries) needs to be Free Software and needs to be
allowed to link with LGPLv2.1+ code (if needed). LXC upstream prefers
LGPLv2.1+ or GPLv2 for those.
When introducing a new file into the project, please make sure it has a
copyright header making clear under which license it's being released
and if it doesn't match the criteria described above, please explain
your decision on the lxc-devel mailing-list when submitting your patch.
This is intended to switch over files to LGPLv2.1+ to which end we have
collected ACKs from relevant people.
/* Affected People */
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Donghwa Jeong <dh48.jeong@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Acked-by: Donghwa Jeong <dh48.jeong@samsung.com>
liblxc has always been meant to be LGPLv2.1+ as reflected by the many
downstreams projects and bindings which are themselves under LGPLv2.1+ or other
licenses which would be incompatible with linking against a GPLv2+ library.
It's pretty normal for a library to be LGPL while binaries are GPL as a GPL
library would only ever be usable by other GPL-only projects, which isn't the
case for very many of the liblxc downstreams.
The issue here is really carelessness. None of those GPL headers were put there
intentionally, instead being wrongly copy/pasted from other parts of the
codebase which is indeed intended to be GPLv2+. This is also made clear in our
CONTRIBUTING file in this repository:
Licensing for new files:
------------------------
LXC is made of files shipped under a few different licenses.
Anything that ends up being part of the LXC library needs to be released
under LGPLv2.1+ or a license compatible with it (though the latter will
only be accepted for cases where the code originated elsewhere and was
imported into LXC).
Language bindings for the libraries need to be released under LGPLv2.1+.
Anything else (non-libraries) needs to be Free Software and needs to be
allowed to link with LGPLv2.1+ code (if needed). LXC upstream prefers
LGPLv2.1+ or GPLv2 for those.
When introducing a new file into the project, please make sure it has a
copyright header making clear under which license it's being released
and if it doesn't match the criteria described above, please explain
your decision on the lxc-devel mailing-list when submitting your patch.
This is intended to switch over files to LGPLv2.1+ to which end we have
collected ACKs from relevant people.
/* Affected People */
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Donghwa Jeong <dh48.jeong@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Acked-by: Donghwa Jeong <dh48.jeong@samsung.com>
Previously this set `ctx->ns_fd[*]` to `-EBADF` until commit
fd2a88b190 ("attach: cleanup macros lxc_proc_close_ns_fd",
but there are some code paths where we call this before
later calling `lxc_proc_put_context_info` which would call
this function again with the file descriptors still
unchanged.
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
It hasn't worked reliably for us for a long time. Remove it until such time as
someone cares enough to fix it.
Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
