Hi
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 6:57 PM Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/13/19 11:42 AM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> > The slirp COPYRIGHT file is a BSD-3 license.
>
> Is it? I only see 2 clauses listed there.
In commit 2f5f89963186d42a7ded253bc6cf5b32abb45cec ("Remove the
advertising clause from the slirp license"). the 4th BSD clause was
removed.
Daniel Gasparovski & Kelly Price gave permission to license slirp
under 3-clause BSD.
So I think we should instead put back the 3rd clause in COPYRIGHT file.
What do you think?
>
> My understanding (although I may be wrong) is that 2-clause can be
> strengthened to 3-clause unilaterally, but 3-clause cannot be weakened
> to 2-clause without copyright owner buy-in.
>
> > Instead of referring to
> > another project file, the SPDX license notice present in all source
> > files states that unequivocally.
>
> Should we put this patch before 2/4? You'd have to reword things if you
> do it in that order, though.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>
> > ---
>
> > +++ b/slirp/src/debug.h
> > @@ -1,9 +1,6 @@
> > /* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause */
> > /*
> > * Copyright (c) 1995 Danny Gasparovski.
> > - *
> > - * Please read the file COPYRIGHT for the
> > - * terms and conditions of the copyright.
>
> If we resolve the issue about slirp/COPYRIGHT being 2-clause or
> 3-clause, and we are happy with the addition of the SPDX tag in 2/4,
> then this change makes sense. But I'm hesitant to give R-b to this one
> without resolving those questions first.
>
> --
> Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
> Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226
> Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
>
