On Feb 9, 2017 9:45 AM, "Jens Reyer" <jre.wine...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/07/2017 09:52 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jens Reyer writes ("New upstream changing license, typo and
SPDX-License-Identifier"):
>> 1. LGPL-2+ --> LGPL-2.1+
>> ========================
[...]
> There is no problem with this. Licence version upgrade is routine, if
> "or later" has been used.
Thanks Ian, that was our main concern.
>> 2. SPDX-License-Identifier
>> ==========================
>>
>> Currently some files (small helper scripts, luckily only by authors we
>> can ask for permission) have a custom license notifier for LGPL-2.1 only
>> (but not later).[4] I'd like to change this (with the authors'
>> permission). To respect the wish for a short license notice in these
>> files, I've suggested to use the SPDX-License-Identifier instead:
>>
>> -# This software comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
>> -#
>> -# This is free software, placed under the terms of the GNU
>> -# Lesser Public License version 2.1, as published by the Free
>> -# Software Foundation. Please see the file COPYING for details.
>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+
>
> This is not human-readable. I would avoid it, personally.
>
> By "not human-readable" I don't mean that it's not clear what licence
> this refers to. What it lacks is a clear declaration that the file is
> released under the named licence.
>
> I would suggest simply adding the missing words:
> ... Lesser Public License version 2.1 {+ or later +}, as ...
>
> The intent is then clear, even if a bit abbreviated.
I had hoped that the SPDX-License-Identifier would be accepted
universally, and therefore preferred to something custom. That doesn't
seem to be true, so I'll now just fix the custom short notice as suggested.
> In the discussion of the pull request, Austin says "However
> src/winetricks has had many more authors than just
> myself/Dan/Joseph".
Yes, that was only about src/winetricks having too many contributors to
change the license. But this file is only affected by the LGPL-2+ -->
LGPL-2.1+ issue, which you confirmed is ok to be simply fixed.
> This is true, but it is only these three files
> Makefile
> src/linkcheck.sh
> src/release.sh
> which seem to have the problematic statement, AFAICT. That's the
> output of
> git-grep -l 'Lesser Public License' | xargs git-grep -L 'or later'
There are also some files with no copyright/license notice at all, but
they are all Dan's and Austin's.
> So we need only ask the contributors to those files, who are
> AsciiWolf
> Austin English
> daniel.r.kegel[@gmail.com]
> I think AsciiWolf must be Joseph ?
No, different persons. But Joseph's file was only affected by the
LGPL-2+ --> LGPL-2.1+ (non-)issue. I erroneously added him to the list
of must-give-permission. And he gave his ACK anyway in the meantime.
> But anyway that committer
> committed only 4 lines to Makefile in one commit, which is a minimal
> contribution which probably doesn't attract the copyright monopoly.
That was also my thinking.
> I see Austin is happy. So I think you just need agreement from
> Daniel.
Yes, indeed.
> Ian.
Thanks again for the answer!
Greets
jre
Just to close this out, I contacted Dan about it, who okayed the change via
email. I had him confirm on github so it's public and people didn't think I
twisted his words ;).
I've now merged the PR.
@jre, I made a release yesterday, but if debian would benefit from one
sooner with this, let me know please.
--
-Austin
GPG: 14FB D7EA A041 937B
