Re: relicensing libunistring to "dual LGPLv3+ or GPLv2"

[Paul Eggert]

Bruno Haible wrote:

Paul, please cry loudly if you disagree :)


No, that's fine, thanks. (Sorry, I thought I already replied to this.)

Re: relicensing libunistring to "dual LGPLv3+ or GPLv2"

[Bruno Haible]

People reminded me about this license change:

> The other files were written by:
>   lib/fseterr.h: Bruno
>   lib/fseterr.c: Bruno, Kevin Cernekee
>   lib/mbchar.h: Bruno, Paul (regarding 'inline')
>   lib/mbchar.c: Bruno, Paul (regarding 'inline')
>   lib/mbiter.h: Bruno, Paul
>   lib/mbiter.c: Paul
>   lib/mbsnlen.c: Bruno
>   lib/wcwidth.c: Bruno
> 
> I would be willing to put my contributions to these files under LGPLv2+.
> 
> === Paul ===
> 
> Would you be willing to do the same for lib/mbchar.* and lib/mbiter.* ?
> 
> === Kevin ===
> 
> Would you be willing to do the same for lib/fseterr.c ?

Thanks Kevin for your approval.

I didn't get an approval from Paul, so I'll assume that he considers his
contributions to these files (about 'inline', and spello fixes) as not
relevant for copyright questions.
Paul, please cry loudly if you disagree :)


2016-12-01  Bruno Haible  

Relicense some modules under LGPLv2+.
Kevin Cernekee's approval is in
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2016-11/msg00090.html.
* modules/fseterr (License): Change to LGPLv2+.
* modules/mbchar (License): Likewise.
* modules/mbiter (License): Likewise.
* modules/mbsnlen (License): Likewise.
* modules/wcwidth (License): Likewise.

diff --git a/modules/fseterr b/modules/fseterr
index 242fc2d..7fa7ecd 100644
--- a/modules/fseterr
+++ b/modules/fseterr
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ Include:
 "fseterr.h"
 
 License:
-LGPL
+LGPLv2+
 
 Maintainer:
 all
diff --git a/modules/mbchar b/modules/mbchar
index 08e4a14..2f7e11e 100644
--- a/modules/mbchar
+++ b/modules/mbchar
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Include:
 "mbchar.h"
 
 License:
-LGPL
+LGPLv2+
 
 Maintainer:
 all
diff --git a/modules/mbiter b/modules/mbiter
index 66e0cb1..6375652 100644
--- a/modules/mbiter
+++ b/modules/mbiter
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ Include:
 "mbiter.h"
 
 License:
-LGPL
+LGPLv2+
 
 Maintainer:
 all
diff --git a/modules/mbsnlen b/modules/mbsnlen
index ea6fb72..9be1cdd 100644
--- a/modules/mbsnlen
+++ b/modules/mbsnlen
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ Include:
 
 
 License:
-LGPL
+LGPLv2+
 
 Maintainer:
 all
diff --git a/modules/wcwidth b/modules/wcwidth
index b5bea24..5a27713 100644
--- a/modules/wcwidth
+++ b/modules/wcwidth
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ Include:
 
 
 License:
-LGPL
+LGPLv2+
 
 Maintainer:
 all

Re: relicensing libunistring to "dual LGPLv3+ or GPLv2"

[Kevin Cernekee]

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Bruno Haible  wrote:
> I would be willing to put my contributions to these files under LGPLv2+.
[...]
> === Kevin ===
>
> Would you be willing to do the same for lib/fseterr.c ?

Yes, approved.

Re: relicensing libunistring to "dual LGPLv3+ or GPLv2"

[Bruno Haible]

Daiki Ueno wrote:
> noticed some more dependencies (from the unistdio modules):
> 
> /home/dueno/devel/libunistring/../gnulib/gnulib-tool: *** incompatible 
> license on modules:
>  fseterr   LGPL
>  mbcharLGPL
>  mbiterLGPL
>  mbsnlen   LGPL
>  wcwidth   LGPL

Oh, indeed. Somehow I missed these dependencies.

The file lib/stdio-impl.h is already under LGPLv2+, per modules
fflush, freadahead, freading, freadptr, freadseek, fpurge, fseeko, ftello.

The other files were written by:
  lib/fseterr.h: Bruno
  lib/fseterr.c: Bruno, Kevin Cernekee
  lib/mbchar.h: Bruno, Paul (regarding 'inline')
  lib/mbchar.c: Bruno, Paul (regarding 'inline')
  lib/mbiter.h: Bruno, Paul
  lib/mbiter.c: Paul
  lib/mbsnlen.c: Bruno
  lib/wcwidth.c: Bruno

I would be willing to put my contributions to these files under LGPLv2+.

=== Paul ===

Would you be willing to do the same for lib/mbchar.* and lib/mbiter.* ?

=== Kevin ===

Would you be willing to do the same for lib/fseterr.c ?

Bruno

Re: relicensing libunistring to "dual LGPLv3+ or GPLv2"

[Bruno Haible]

Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> LGPLv2+ is fine for any gnulib module I wrote.

Thank you, Paolo.

With all approvals complete, I pushed the relicensing changes.

Bruno
--
In memoriam Kerem Yılmazer 

Re: relicensing libunistring to "dual LGPLv3+ or GPLv2"

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 19/11/2016 11:26, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi Paolo,
> 
> For the 'frexpl-nolibm' module I also need your approval, since you
> contributed lib/frexpl.c on 2003-02-18.
> 
> Would you agree to relicense your initial lib/frexpl.c
> under 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2'?
> Or possibly even under LGPLv2+?
> 
> If you don't voice an objection within a week, I'll assume you agree.

LGPLv2+ is fine for any gnulib module I wrote.

Paolo

> 
> Bruno
> 
>> It has been decided that libunistring is going to be relicensed under
>> "dual LGPLv3+ or GPLv2" license. See
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-libunistring/2016-11/msg3.html
>>
>> To this effect, the libunistring modules in gnulib that are currently under
>> LGPLv3+ need to be relicensed to 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2'. Those modules that
>> are under LGPLv2+ stay under LGPLv2+.
>>
>> 1)
>> This proposed patch does this. It also extends gnulib-tool so that
>>   * the option --lgpl accepts the form --lgpl=3orGPLv2
>>   * the compatibility checks consider this 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' license
>> (namely, the allowed relicensings are:
>>  LGPLv2+ --> 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2'
>>  'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' --> LGPLv3+ = LGPL
>>  'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' --> GPLv2+
>>  'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' --> GPLv3+ = GPL
>>
>> 2)
>> Some libunistring modules depend on gnulib modules with an LGPL license:
>>
>> unicase needs:
>>
>>   Module  Authors of the lib/* files (modulo trivial changes)
>>   memcmp2 Bruno
>>   amemxfrmBruno
>>
>> unistdio needs:
>>
>>   Module  Authors of the lib/* files (modulo trivial changes)
>>
>>   fpieee  --
>>   fpucw   Bruno
>>   frexpl-nolibm   Bruno
>>   frexp-nolibmBruno
>>   isnand-nolibm   Bruno, Paul, Eric, Ludovic
>>   isnanf-nolibm   Bruno, Paul, Eric, Ludovic
>>   isnanl-nolibm   Bruno, Paul, Eric, Ludovic
>>   printf-frexpBruno
>>   printf-frexpl   Bruno
>>   printf-safe --
>>   signbit Bruno, Paul
>>
>> I am willing to relicense these modules to 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' or to the even
>> weaker license LGPLv2+.
>>
>> lib/float+.h is already under LGPLv2+, per the modules 'integer_length' and
>> 'vasnprintf'.
>>
>> === Paul, Eric, Ludovic, ===
>>
>> Would you agree to relicense your changes to lib/isnan.c
>> under 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2'?
>> Or possibly even under LGPLv2+?
>>
>> The history is here:
>> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=history;f=lib/isnan.c
>>
>> Bruno
> 
> --
> In memoriam Farhád Asdaqí 
> 
> 
> 

Re: relicensing libunistring to "dual LGPLv3+ or GPLv2"

[Bruno Haible]

Hi Paolo,

For the 'frexpl-nolibm' module I also need your approval, since you
contributed lib/frexpl.c on 2003-02-18.

Would you agree to relicense your initial lib/frexpl.c
under 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2'?
Or possibly even under LGPLv2+?

If you don't voice an objection within a week, I'll assume you agree.

Bruno

> It has been decided that libunistring is going to be relicensed under
> "dual LGPLv3+ or GPLv2" license. See
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-libunistring/2016-11/msg3.html
> 
> To this effect, the libunistring modules in gnulib that are currently under
> LGPLv3+ need to be relicensed to 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2'. Those modules that
> are under LGPLv2+ stay under LGPLv2+.
> 
> 1)
> This proposed patch does this. It also extends gnulib-tool so that
>   * the option --lgpl accepts the form --lgpl=3orGPLv2
>   * the compatibility checks consider this 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' license
> (namely, the allowed relicensings are:
>  LGPLv2+ --> 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2'
>  'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' --> LGPLv3+ = LGPL
>  'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' --> GPLv2+
>  'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' --> GPLv3+ = GPL
> 
> 2)
> Some libunistring modules depend on gnulib modules with an LGPL license:
> 
> unicase needs:
> 
>   Module  Authors of the lib/* files (modulo trivial changes)
>   memcmp2 Bruno
>   amemxfrmBruno
> 
> unistdio needs:
> 
>   Module  Authors of the lib/* files (modulo trivial changes)
> 
>   fpieee  --
>   fpucw   Bruno
>   frexpl-nolibm   Bruno
>   frexp-nolibmBruno
>   isnand-nolibm   Bruno, Paul, Eric, Ludovic
>   isnanf-nolibm   Bruno, Paul, Eric, Ludovic
>   isnanl-nolibm   Bruno, Paul, Eric, Ludovic
>   printf-frexpBruno
>   printf-frexpl   Bruno
>   printf-safe --
>   signbit Bruno, Paul
> 
> I am willing to relicense these modules to 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' or to the even
> weaker license LGPLv2+.
> 
> lib/float+.h is already under LGPLv2+, per the modules 'integer_length' and
> 'vasnprintf'.
> 
> === Paul, Eric, Ludovic, ===
> 
> Would you agree to relicense your changes to lib/isnan.c
> under 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2'?
> Or possibly even under LGPLv2+?
> 
> The history is here:
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=history;f=lib/isnan.c
> 
> Bruno

--
In memoriam Farhád Asdaqí 

Re: relicensing libunistring to "dual LGPLv3+ or GPLv2"

[Bruno Haible]

Hi Paolo,

For the 'frexpl-nolibm' module I also need your approval, since you
contributed lib/frexpl.c on 2003-02-18.

Would you agree to relicense your initial lib/frexpl.c
under 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2'?
Or possibly even under LGPLv2+?

Bruno

> It has been decided that libunistring is going to be relicensed under
> "dual LGPLv3+ or GPLv2" license. See
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-libunistring/2016-11/msg3.html
> 
> To this effect, the libunistring modules in gnulib that are currently under
> LGPLv3+ need to be relicensed to 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2'. Those modules that
> are under LGPLv2+ stay under LGPLv2+.
> 
> 1)
> This proposed patch does this. It also extends gnulib-tool so that
>   * the option --lgpl accepts the form --lgpl=3orGPLv2
>   * the compatibility checks consider this 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' license
> (namely, the allowed relicensings are:
>  LGPLv2+ --> 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2'
>  'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' --> LGPLv3+ = LGPL
>  'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' --> GPLv2+
>  'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' --> GPLv3+ = GPL
> 
> 2)
> Some libunistring modules depend on gnulib modules with an LGPL license:
> 
> unicase needs:
> 
>   Module  Authors of the lib/* files (modulo trivial changes)
>   memcmp2 Bruno
>   amemxfrmBruno
> 
> unistdio needs:
> 
>   Module  Authors of the lib/* files (modulo trivial changes)
> 
>   fpieee  --
>   fpucw   Bruno
>   frexpl-nolibm   Bruno
>   frexp-nolibmBruno
>   isnand-nolibm   Bruno, Paul, Eric, Ludovic
>   isnanf-nolibm   Bruno, Paul, Eric, Ludovic
>   isnanl-nolibm   Bruno, Paul, Eric, Ludovic
>   printf-frexpBruno
>   printf-frexpl   Bruno
>   printf-safe --
>   signbit Bruno, Paul
> 
> I am willing to relicense these modules to 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' or to the even
> weaker license LGPLv2+.
> 
> lib/float+.h is already under LGPLv2+, per the modules 'integer_length' and
> 'vasnprintf'.
> 
> === Paul, Eric, Ludovic, ===
> 
> Would you agree to relicense your changes to lib/isnan.c
> under 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2'?
> Or possibly even under LGPLv2+?
> 
> The history is here:
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=history;f=lib/isnan.c
> 
> Bruno
> --
> In memoriam Moustapha Akkad 

Re: relicensing libunistring to "dual LGPLv3+ or GPLv2"

[Eric Blake]

On 11/11/2016 07:44 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> It has been decided that libunistring is going to be relicensed under
> "dual LGPLv3+ or GPLv2" license. See
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-libunistring/2016-11/msg3.html
> 
> To this effect, the libunistring modules in gnulib that are currently under
> LGPLv3+ need to be relicensed to 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2'. Those modules that
> are under LGPLv2+ stay under LGPLv2+.
> 
> 1)
> This proposed patch does this. It also extends gnulib-tool so that
>   * the option --lgpl accepts the form --lgpl=3orGPLv2
>   * the compatibility checks consider this 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' license
> (namely, the allowed relicensings are:
>  LGPLv2+ --> 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2'

LGPL can always be tightened to GPL, and the + means it can be upgraded
from 2 to 3, so this is correct.

>  'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' --> LGPLv3+ = LGPL

This says you are picking only one of the two options, so it is correct.

>  'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' --> GPLv2+

This one is possible because LGPLv3+ can always be tightened to GPLv3+;
it is written GPLv2+ because of the GPLv2 option.

>  'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' --> GPLv3+ = GPL

And this says you are picking only the LGPLv3+ option, then tightening
it to GPLv3+.

Okay, I agree with all four of those transitions.


> 
> === Paul, Eric, Ludovic, ===
> 
> Would you agree to relicense your changes to lib/isnan.c
> under 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2'?
> Or possibly even under LGPLv2+?

I'd lean towards the more-permissive LGPLv2+, but 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' is
also fine.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com+1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: relicensing libunistring to "dual LGPLv3+ or GPLv2"

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Bruno,

Bruno Haible  skribis:

> === Paul, Eric, Ludovic, ===
>
> Would you agree to relicense your changes to lib/isnan.c
> under 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2'?
> Or possibly even under LGPLv2+?

Yes, sure.

Ludo’.

Re: relicensing libunistring to "dual LGPLv3+ or GPLv2"

[Paul Eggert]

On 11/11/2016 05:44 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:

Would you agree to relicense your changes to lib/isnan.c
under 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2'?
Or possibly even under LGPLv2+?



Yes, that's fine with me.