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!