[Spice-devel] License in server/red_parse_qxl.h is GPL, not LGPL

Daniel P. Berrange berrange at redhat.com
Wed Dec 14 09:10:22 PST 2011

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 09:02:52AM -0700, Bruce Rogers wrote:
> When trying to submit a spice package to openSUSE,
> our licensing team noticed that the file server/red_parse_qxl.h
> is GPL-2.0+. This seems like an oversight, particularly as the
> corresponding red_parse_qxl.c file right next to the header file
> has a LGPL-2.1+ license, which was corrected subsequent to its
> initial submission (see commit id: 
> 11034dda428865e442dd2c981851500ed96b9a0c)
> Could someone confirm if this is a mistake or not.

Both red_parse_qxl.h & red_parse_qxl.c were introduced in commit
11034dda428865e442dd2c981851500ed96b9a0c by Gerd with GPLv2+.
In commit c29e4f9dd852231f04877ea700f0c3686f4500f3 Hans fixed
red_parse_qxl.c to have the LGPLv2+ header, but didn't touch
the .h file.

It is pretty clear to me that the .h file should have been fixed
at the same time to have the LGPLv2+ header. In addition simple
header file declarations like those in red_parse_qxl.h can't
really be considered to be copyrightable content, so while IANAL,
the license header in the .h is not really having any significant
legal influence IMHO.

|: 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 :|

More information about the Spice-devel mailing list