On 12/05/2013 11:04 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 16:31 +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 12/05/2013 04:02 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 15:38 +0100, Petr Vobornik wrote:
On 5.12.2013 15:34, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 15:29 +0100, Petr Vobornik wrote:
On 5.12.2013 14:09, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 12/03/2013 03:26 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
Some tags escaped the relicensing we did a long time ago.

Simo.
Looks good, ACK, pushed to:
master: af26e6da4650b3a429af31bc38b546eff27e38c6
ipa-3-3: 9defb913aa65bfe9b423d510f340ae23b9e547f2



I grepped for some other occurences of "GPLv2":

contrib/RHEL4/ipa-client.spec:7:License:        GPLv2
do we still want to carry the RHEL4 stuff anyway?

ipa-client/ipa-client.spec.in:7:License:        GPLv2
Is ipa-client.spec used for anything any more?


install/ui/src/freeipa/package.json:
        "licenses": [{
            "type": "GPLv3",
            "url": "http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html";
        },{
            "type": "GPLv2",
            "url": "http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html";
        }],
Is this package dual-licensed?

It's because of:
     git grep "Free Software Foundation; version 2"
install/ui/src/freeipa/aci.js: * published by the Free Software
Foundation; version 2 only
install/ui/test/aci_tests.js: * published by the Free Software
Foundation; version 2 only
install/ui/test/widget_tests.js: * published by the Free Software
Foundation; version 2 only


It's most likely a mistake and should be changed.
Is that code really v2 only ?

Or are you saying the "version 2 only" strings are mistakes ?

Simo.

It's our code. So IMO we should just change it to v3.
I do not recall we ever used the v2 only variant, this is highly
suspect, we should go through history and make sure it is all our code,
then re-license it.
If it is derived from v2 only code from an outside party though then we
will need to ask for permission to change or strip the code out and
rewrite it from scratch.

Can someone check through git history and determine where the code comes
from and how the "only" label got onto it ?
There were Red Hat¹ contributors only so far:

$ for file in
install/ui/{src/freeipa/aci.js,test/aci_tests.js,test/widget_tests.js};
do git log --follow --raw $file; done | grep ^Author: | sort | uniq
Author: Adam Young <ayo...@redhat.com>
Author: Endi S. Dewata <edew...@redhat.com>
Author: Endi Sukma Dewata <edew...@redhat.com>
Author: Martin Kosek <mko...@redhat.com>
Author: Petr Vobornik <pvobo...@redhat.com>
Author: Petr Voborník <pvobo...@redhat.com>


The files come from these commits, with the "only" label already in them:
c281e786c805f400ca23d4412e29d396632d5441 widget unit tests
07ace112afeaadade0ca372fe23a9432c2c9780f aci ui

or without tracking renames:
b9ef6ab0c412913234f05f788b3fcd3c3277eb69 Move of core Web UI files to
AMD directory
b9ad279ad2d8d93dd501115a028783cf8fe7fcbd rename static to ui
c281e786c805f400ca23d4412e29d396632d5441 widget unit tests

Bringing Adam in the loop as he seem to be the original author.

Adam,
can you shed some light on this license issue ?

Was it just a mistake on your part when you copied in the boiler plate ?
Or was the code derived (and why no attribution if it was ?)

No it was not derived, and I am the original author. I think the code was copied verbatim from another file, and I know no reason that it needs to stay as V2 Only. At that time, the only people touching these files were me and Endi. The only thing that we did not originate ourselves were the unit test framework. The string 'aci' is specific to the business logic of FreeIPA and it was completely the work of Red Hat employees.


Simo.


_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel

Reply via email to