Ping^2! Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> writes:
> Ping? > > Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> writes: > >> [Licensing problem, cc: Anthony] >> >> Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> Am 13.12.2013 um 14:31 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: >>>> On 11/12/2013 06:44 PM, Wenchao Xia wrote: >>>> > +++ b/scripts/qapi-event.py >>>> > @@ -0,0 +1,355 @@ >>>> > +# >>>> > +# QAPI event generator >>>> > +# >>>> > +# Copyright IBM, Corp. 2013 >>>> > +# >>>> > +# Authors: >>>> > +# Wenchao Xia <xiaw...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>>> > +# >>>> > +# This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPLv2. >>>> >>>> Can you please use GPLv2+ (that is, add the "or later" clause)? We >>>> already have GPLv2-only code, but I don't want to increase the size of >>>> that unfortunate license choice. >>> >>> In fact, it's even worse: >>> >>> +# This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPLv2. >>> +# See the COPYING.LIB file in the top-level directory. >>> >>> These two lines contradict each other, COPYING.LIB contains the >>> LGPL 2.1. The same bad license header is in the other QAPI generator >>> scripts, so it's only copy&paste here. >> >> Specifically: >> >> File Commit >> scripts/qapi-commands.py c17d9908 >> scripts/qapi-visit.py fb3182ce >> scripts/qapi-types.py 06d64c62 >> scripts/qapi.py 0f923be2 >> >> All four from Michael Roth via Luiz. >> >>> This doesn't make things easier, because if things are copied, the >>> license of the source must be respected. And it seems rather dubious to >>> me what this license actually is. If it's GPLv2-only, we can't just >>> change it in the new copy. >> >> IANAL, and I wouldn't dare to judge which of the two conflicting license >> claims takes precedence. Possibly neither, and then the files might >> technically not be distributable. >> >> Anyway, this mess needs to be addressed. Michael, what was your >> *intended* license? >> >> If it wasn't GPLv2+, then why? >> >> Do we need formal ACKs from all contributors to fix the licensing >> comment in these four files?
