[Rust-VMM] Licensing Issue in rust-vmm crates

Alberto Faria afaria at redhat.com
Wed Jun 22 16:30:37 UTC 2022

On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 4:16 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi, Apache-2.0 OR BSD-3-clause is okay as the overall license of the package, even if individual files maybe just BSD-3-clause.
> The licensee is free to ignore the extra requirements of the Apache license for files derived from crosvm; but they could do it anyway for _all_ files, because it's already allowed by the OR.

I may be misunderstanding this, but it sounds like you're assuming
that Apache-2.0 is a superset of BSD-3-clause in terms of user
obligations. I have no idea if this is actually the case or not, but
if it is, then "Apache-2.0 OR BSD-3-clause" == "BSD-3-clause", which
in a sense contradicts the wide use of the former in Rust crates.

Perhaps it really is a superset and the advantage of OR'ing Apache 2.0
is that the user gets some legal protection against patents?


More information about the Rust-vmm mailing list