On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 11:53 AM David Sterba <dste...@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 04:01:43PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > This is a patch requesting all substantial copyright owners to sign off
> > on changing the license of the libbtrfsutil code to LGPLv2.1+ in order
> > to resolve various concerns around the mixture of code in btrfs-progs
> > with libbtrfsutil.
> >
> > Each significant (i.e. non-trivial) commit author has been CC'd to
> > request their sign-off on this. Please reply to this to acknowledge
> > whether or not this is acceptable for your code.
>
> Thanks! I think we have acks for all non-trivial contirbutions. For the
> record, the trivial one are:
>
> * dbf60b488e3b ("libbtrfsutil: update btrfs_util_delete_subvolume docs")
> a comment update, clarifying usage
>
> * 2e67bf0ed69d ("btrfs-progs: docs: fix typos in READMEs, INSTALL and *
> CHANGES")
> * b1d39a42a4ef ("btrfs-progs: fix typos in comments")
> treewide comment typo fixes
>
> * 01e35d9f53eb ("btrfs-progs: treewide: Fix missing declarations")
> code changes, but adding static or missing includes
>
> * 9fd37f951be6 ("btrfs-progs: complete the implementation RAID1C34
> definitions")
> copied definitions from kernel code
>
> I'm not sure about the commit adding pkg-config spec file, it's not code
> but it's beyond what I'd consider trivial. I've added Sheng Mao to CC,
> please acknowledge the change.
>
> * 4498fe1a2a7c ("libbtrfsutil: add pkg-config spec file")
>
> I'll update the changelog with all the reasons for relicensing that have
> been brought up.
I consider that trivial because the only actual part in libbtrfsutil
is the pc file, which is a trivial templated data file (I had one that
I was preparing to send that looked exactly like it, but Sheng Mao
beat me to the punch). The autofoo is part of the parent btrfs-progs
project and is already correctly licensed anyway.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
