Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Complex licensing interactions for OpenLMI

[Richard Fontana]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 09:27:16AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ping. I'd like to get an answer on this soon, if possible.

The answer is: yes, this arrangement is acceptable.

- RF
> On Thu 04 Apr 2013 01:07:53 PM EDT, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On 04/04/2013 11:41 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > We have some concerns about whether our licensing will be in 
> > > conflict in the OpenLMI project. I'll attempt to describe the 
> > > topography. Tomas, please correct me if I have misrepresented 
> > > anything.
> > >
> > > We have three components in question here:
> > > The OpenPegasus CIMOM. This is a daemon licensed under MIT.
> > >
> > > It has a plugin architecture that enables it to dlopen() plugin 
> > > modules and use them. (Dynamic linking by dlopen)
> > > The SBLIM providers. These are a set of CIMOM plugins
> > >
> > > licensed under the MPL that provides some common, standard
> > > interfaces through OpenPegasus.
> >
> > Sorry, important distinction. This should have been EPL (as I 
> > correctly mention below).
> > > The OpenLMI providers. These are plugins licensed under
> > >
> > > LGPLv2+ that consume some of the functionality provided by the
> > > SBLIM providers, but which do so by means of local communication
> > > through the OpenPegasus CIMOM.
> > >
> > > Our question here is whether this is an acceptable arrangement.
> > > I see two potential pitfalls that I would like (hopefully) to
> > > have dispelled. A) I know it is acceptable for an MIT application
> > > to link separately to an EPL library and an LGPL library.
> > > However, is the resulting linked chimera also permissable, given
> > > that the two libraries themselves do not have a direct link? B)
> > > Is the indirect link between the OpenLMI providers (LGPL) and the
> > > SBLIM providers (EPL) acceptable, given that it does so only
> > > through interfaces provided by OpenPegasus (MIT) and not through
> > > direct function calls?
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlF2jDQACgkQeiVVYja6o6MLxACgrjW4NChOqq6tEePqH7aerHPS
> /SsAn3DK0o/jophaFb9EQS7jFeQ5dmEW
> =/oVt
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----