As far as I understand it, it is indeed covered:
1. The file contains BSD license at the top for the whole file.
2. It also includes the original LGPL license of the code that was used to derive a portion of the implementation.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to be all right.
Dmitry
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Darin Adler
<darin@apple.com> wrote:
On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:12 PM, Dmitry Titov wrote:
In the proposed patch the ThreadingWin.cpp would contain 2 licenses - standard WebKit one and a copy of Pthread-win32 license (LGPL). The latter is there because the code for ThreadCondition is derived from the sources of that library (removing the need to pull in the whole library for 50 lines of code).
Does this idea look acceptable? Can we use LGPL'ed source this way and how should we go about the license if we can?
1) If you are sending in a patch to existing WebKit code, you agree by clicking below that your changes are licensed under the existing license terms of the file you are modifying (i.e., BSD license or GNU Lesser General Public License v.2.1, LGPL v. 2.1). Please also add your copyright (name and year) to the relevant files for changes that are more than 10 lines of code.
2) If you are sending in a new file for inclusion in WebKit (no code copied from another source), the preferred license is BSD, but LGPL 2.1 is an option as well. Please include your copyright (name and year) and license preference (BSD or LGPL 2.1). By clicking below you agree that your file is licensed under either the BSD license or LGPL 2.1, as indicated in your file.
3) If you aren't the author of the patch, you agree to include the original copyright notices and licensing terms with it, to the extent that they exist. If there wasn't a copyright notice or license, please make a note of it. Generally we can only take in patches that are BSD- or LGPL-licensed in order to maintain license compatibility within the project.
Is there something in this case that isn't covered by those terms?
-- Darin