On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 05:27:20PM +0200, Jan Pokorný wrote: > On 24/03/16 17:18 +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote: > > On 22/03/16 19:18 +0100, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:03:12PM +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote: > >>> On 18/03/16 16:16 +0100, Lars Ellenberg wrote: > >>>> So I move to change it to GPLv2+, for everything that is a "program", > >>>> and LGPLv2.1 for everything that may be viewed as a library. > >>>> > >>>> At least that's how I will correct the wording in the > >>>> affected files in the heartbeat mercurial. > >>> > >>> In the light of the presented historic excursion, that feels natural. > >>> > >>> Assuming no licensors want to speak up, the question now stands: > >>> Is it the same conclusion that has been reached by booth and sbd > >>> package maintainers (Dejan and Andrew respectively, if I follow what's > >>> authoritative nowadays properly) and are these willing to act on it to > >>> prevent the mentioned ambiguous interpretation once forever? > >> > >> Yes, that's all fine with me. > >> > >>> I will be happy to provide actual patches, > >> > >> Even better :) > > > > Added the "maint: clarify GPLv2.1+ -> GPLv2+ in the license notices" > > (e294fa2) commit into https://github.com/ClusterLabs/booth/pull/23 > > if that's OK with you, Dejan. > > I hope we are all on the same page as Andrew went ahead there (thanks). > Alas, I've noticed there were some subtleties neglected in there so, > with regrets, a separate (and hopefully final) pull request: > > https://github.com/ClusterLabs/booth/pull/24
This got merged too. Thanks! Dejan > -- > Jan (Poki) > _______________________________________________ > Developers mailing list > Developers@clusterlabs.org > http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list Developers@clusterlabs.org http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
