Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/2] multipath-tools: move COPYING to COPYING.LESSER
On 04/09/2018 10:38 PM, Christophe Varoqui wrote: > I see FSF recommends the COPYING+COPYING.LESSER file names, as Xose > implemented. > What if we just add a LICENSE file stating that files with no explicit > copying* > reference fall under the COPYING.LESSER ? As Martin checked recently, there are four licences used in the code. Put all of them in a LICENSES/ directory is clearer. And do a link from LICENSES/LGPL-2.0 to COPYING, or LICENSE.default, ... to indicate the default one. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/2] multipath-tools: move COPYING to COPYING.LESSER
I'll take credit for this mistake. You got the idea anyway. On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > 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 multipath-tools-0.1.0/COPYING > > GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE >Version 2, June 1991 > > Copyright (C) 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies > of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. > > [This is the first released version of the library GPL. It is > -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/2] multipath-tools: move COPYING to COPYING.LESSER
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 multipath-tools-0.1.0/COPYING GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 Copyright (C) 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. [This is the first released version of the library GPL. It is -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/2] multipath-tools: move COPYING to COPYING.LESSER
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 the LGPL. > It was not intended to relicense any files, nor switch to GPL as the > default license for new files without explicit licensing. > > Hope it clears the history part of the mess, and helps identify a > solution. > > I see FSF recommends the COPYING+COPYING.LESSER file names, as Xose > implemented. What if we just add a LICENSE file stating that files > with no explicit copying* reference fall under the COPYING.LESSER ? That'd be a good start. I'll shortly submit a license README file that summarizes my research into the current situation. You can then decide if you want to add it to the tree, or what else to do with it. Martin -- Dr. Martin Wilck , Tel. +49 (0)911 74053 2107 SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/2] multipath-tools: move COPYING to COPYING.LESSER
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 as the default license for new files without explicit licensing. Hope it clears the history part of the mess, and helps identify a solution. I see FSF recommends the COPYING+COPYING.LESSER file names, as Xose implemented. What if we just add a LICENSE file stating that files with no explicit copying* reference fall under the COPYING.LESSER ? On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:08 PM, Martin Wilck wrote: > 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 to be LGPLv2.0. > > > > They are under their _original_ licence. Nothing was changed inside > > the files. > > Would you care to enlighten me what this "original license" might be? > The files themselves contain no information about it. > > > > By changing COPYING to > > > GPLv2.0, you effectively changed the license of all these files > > > from > > > LPGLv2.0 to GPLv2.0 > > > > There is no evidence of that in any place. All references to the > > COPYING file are > > external files/code, with GPL licence. > > This is not about the files you refer to. The reference in those files > was obiously wrong until your patch was merged. (I admit that's a +1 > for your patch). > > This is about the files that have *no license header*. We *must* assume > that they are covered by a central license file in the top directory. > If we don't do that, it'd be questionable if said files are > distributable at all. Legally, they'd probably not be considered FLOSS. > Files without explicit copyright are be covered by regular copyright > law, meaning that copying and redistribution are _not_ allowed under > most legislations. > > I hope that makes it clear why we need to be firm that these files are > covered by the top license file. That central license file used to be > COPYING. The point of my post was that we have *two* such files now, > and without resorting to history it's impossible to tell which file is > covered by which license (and even with history it's hard, but that's > another posting). > > Historically, these files were added to the tree by Christophe, and > he'd copied the LGPLv2.0 text into COPYING, thus it seems likely that > he meant them to be under LGPLv2.0. > > Martin > > -- > Dr. Martin Wilck , Tel. +49 (0)911 74053 2107 > SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton > HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) > > -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/2] multipath-tools: move COPYING to COPYING.LESSER
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 to be LGPLv2.0. > > They are under their _original_ licence. Nothing was changed inside > the files. Would you care to enlighten me what this "original license" might be? The files themselves contain no information about it. > > By changing COPYING to > > GPLv2.0, you effectively changed the license of all these files > > from > > LPGLv2.0 to GPLv2.0 > > There is no evidence of that in any place. All references to the > COPYING file are > external files/code, with GPL licence. This is not about the files you refer to. The reference in those files was obiously wrong until your patch was merged. (I admit that's a +1 for your patch). This is about the files that have *no license header*. We *must* assume that they are covered by a central license file in the top directory. If we don't do that, it'd be questionable if said files are distributable at all. Legally, they'd probably not be considered FLOSS. Files without explicit copyright are be covered by regular copyright law, meaning that copying and redistribution are _not_ allowed under most legislations. I hope that makes it clear why we need to be firm that these files are covered by the top license file. That central license file used to be COPYING. The point of my post was that we have *two* such files now, and without resorting to history it's impossible to tell which file is covered by which license (and even with history it's hard, but that's another posting). Historically, these files were added to the tree by Christophe, and he'd copied the LGPLv2.0 text into COPYING, thus it seems likely that he meant them to be under LGPLv2.0. Martin -- Dr. Martin Wilck , Tel. +49 (0)911 74053 2107 SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/2] multipath-tools: move COPYING to COPYING.LESSER
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 changed inside the files. > By changing COPYING to > GPLv2.0, you effectively changed the license of all these files from > LPGLv2.0 to GPLv2.0 There is no evidence of that in any place. All references to the COPYING file are external files/code, with GPL licence. $ git grep COPYING libdmmp/docs/kernel-doc:## Please read the COPYING file for more information ## libmultipath/alias.c: * See the file COPYING included with this distribution for more details. libmultipath/file.c: * See the file COPYING included with this distribution for more details. third-party/valgrind/drd.h: otherwise indicated. See the COPYING file in the source third-party/valgrind/drd.h: COPYING file in the source distribution for details. third-party/valgrind/valgrind.h: otherwise indicated. See the COPYING file in the source third-party/valgrind/valgrind.h: COPYING file in the source distribution for details. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/2] multipath-tools: move COPYING to COPYING.LESSER
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 changing COPYING to GPLv2.0, you effectively changed the license of all these files from LPGLv2.0 to GPLv2.0. *Did you mean that*? Or was it your intention that these files are now covered by COPYING.LESSER? If we ship several COPYING files, we need to tell which source files are covered by which one. Without that, the license situation is now even less clear than before. Users might even think that they can freely choose between the two, which isn't the case AFAICT. I was preparing a README document describing the current state of affairs regarding the licensing (along the lines of my "multipath-tools licenses" posting from Mar 23), but this late move of yours leaves me confused. IMHO changing the license would need the consent of the copyright holders, at least those mentioned in the file headers. I'm currently assuming that my previous assessment still holds and source files that have no license header, and for which no other evidence exists, are covered by LGPLv2.0 aka COPYING.LESSER. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Regards, Martin PS: we also need to include the GPLv3.0 text because of the GPLv3.0 license of libdmmp. -- Dr. Martin Wilck , Tel. +49 (0)911 74053 2107 SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/2] multipath-tools: move COPYING to COPYING.LESSER
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" included are > under that license. > Well, COPYING.LGPL, as you already suggested, might be a good compromise then. Cheers, Martin -- Dr. Martin Wilck , Tel. +49 (0)911 74053 2107 SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/2] multipath-tools: move COPYING to COPYING.LESSER
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 https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/2] multipath-tools: move COPYING to COPYING.LESSER
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 Lesser GPL was invented after the creation of the LGPLv2. It's misleading to name the file so, even if the differences between LGPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 are small. > COPYING.LIBRARY is really a very bad name. Why? I think it expresses quite nicely what it contains. Martin -- Dr. Martin Wilck , Tel. +49 (0)911 74053 2107 SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/2] multipath-tools: move COPYING to COPYING.LESSER
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 >> Signed-off-by: Xose Vazquez Perez >> --- >> COPYING => COPYING.LESSER | 0 >> 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> rename COPYING => COPYING.LESSER (100%) >> >> diff --git a/COPYING b/COPYING.LESSER >> similarity index 100% >> rename from COPYING >> rename to COPYING.LESSER > > 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. COPYING.LIBRARY is really a very bad name. But if Christophe see an objection to the "COPYING.LESSER" name, it could be rename to COPYING.LGPL -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/2] multipath-tools: move COPYING to COPYING.LESSER
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 > --- > COPYING => COPYING.LESSER | 0 > 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > rename COPYING => COPYING.LESSER (100%) > > diff --git a/COPYING b/COPYING.LESSER > similarity index 100% > rename from COPYING > rename to COPYING.LESSER IMO you should only call it "COPYING.LESSER" if it's really the lesser GPL (aka LGPLv2.1). Martin -- Dr. Martin Wilck , Tel. +49 (0)911 74053 2107 SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
