On 06/02/2019 14:15, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 14:09:40 +0100
> Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2019-02-06 13:58, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 13:41:33 +0100
>>> Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The license information in these files is rather confusing. The text
>>>> declares LGPL first, but then says that contributions after 2012 are
>>>> licensed under the GPL instead. How should the average user who just
>>>> downloaded the release tarball know which part is now GPL and which
>>>> is LGPL?
>>>
>>> FWIW, that statement was added in ccb084d3f0ec ("s390: new
>>> contributions GPLv2 or later").
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looking at the text of the LGPL (see COPYING.LIB in the top directory),
>>>> the license clearly states how this should be done instead:
>>>>
>>>> "3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public
>>>> License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do
>>>> this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so
>>>> that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2,
>>>> instead of to this License."
>>>
>>> Hm. This talks about GPL v2, not GPL v2-or-later...
>>
>> IANAL, but since all the files originally were licensed under
>> LGPLv2-or-later, that should not be an issue, as far as I can see: You
>> then could also upgrade the LGPLv2-or-later code to LGPLv3-or-later,
>> which in turn allows you to license under GPLv3. So LGPLv2-or-later
>> means you can put the code also under GPLv2-or-later. Or do I miss
>> something?
>
> That would seem logical, but IANAL, either...
>
> Anyway, I'd be happy to queue this if I get acks :)
>
For the linux-user part:
Acked-by: Laurent Vivier <laur...@vivier.eu>
