On 04/09/2018 10:38 PM, Christophe Varoqui wrote:
> Martin is right, the LGPL COPYING was added Sun May 1 15:05:22 2005.
Martin is wrong :-) . That is the "Initial git import" date.
$ stat -c %y multipath-tools-0.1.0/COPYING
2004-02-19 19:38:35.0 +0100
$ head
On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 22:38 +0200, Christophe Varoqui wrote:
> Martin is right, the LGPL COPYING was added Sun May 1 15:05:22 2005.
> Every file added to the tree since then and up to Xose patch
> switching COPYING to GPL, and not explicitely licensed otherwise can
> be assumed to be covered by
Martin is right, the LGPL COPYING was added Sun May 1 15:05:22 2005.
Every file added to the tree since then and up to Xose patch switching
COPYING to GPL, and not explicitely licensed otherwise can be assumed to be
covered by the LGPL.
It was not intended to relicense any files, nor switch to GPL
On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 19:29 +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> On 04/09/2018 05:57 PM, Martin Wilck wrote:
>
> > There are >130 files in the multipath-tools source code which don't
> > have a license header. So far my *assumption* was that these files
> > were
> > covered by COPYING, which used
On 04/09/2018 05:57 PM, Martin Wilck wrote:
> There are >130 files in the multipath-tools source code which don't
> have a license header. So far my *assumption* was that these files were
> covered by COPYING, which used to be LGPLv2.0.
They are under their _original_ licence. Nothing was
Hello Christophe,
You've merged the GPL/LGPL patch set from Xose. I'd like to understand
your intentions.
There are >130 files in the multipath-tools source code which don't
have a license header. So far my assumption was that these files were
covered by COPYING, which used to be LGPLv2.0. By
On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 22:05 +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> On 03/28/2018 09:54 PM, Martin Wilck wrote:
>
> > > COPYING.LIBRARY is really a very bad name.
> >
> > Why? I think it expresses quite nicely what it contains.
>
> Too generic word.
> Because it can be assumed that all "libraries"
On 03/28/2018 09:54 PM, Martin Wilck wrote:
>> COPYING.LIBRARY is really a very bad name.
>
> Why? I think it expresses quite nicely what it contains.
Too generic word.
Because it can be assumed that all "libraries" included are
under that license.
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 21:40 +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> On 03/28/2018 12:03 AM, Martin Wilck wrote:
>
> >
> > IMO you should only call it "COPYING.LESSER" if it's really the
> > lesser
> > GPL (aka LGPLv2.1).
>
> LESSER is just the family of the licence, a tag.
I disagree. The name
On 03/28/2018 12:03 AM, Martin Wilck wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 20:28 +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
>> As recommended by FSF: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
>>
>> Cc: Christophe Varoqui
>> Cc: device-mapper development
>>
On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 20:28 +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> As recommended by FSF: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
>
> Cc: Christophe Varoqui
> Cc: device-mapper development
> Signed-off-by: Xose Vazquez Perez
11 matches
Mail list logo