On 05/04/16 12:33 +0200, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 05:27:20PM +0200, Jan Pokorný wrote:
>> On 24/03/16 17:18 +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote:
>>> On 22/03/16 19:18 +0100, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:03:12PM +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote:
>>>>> On 18/03/16 16:16 +0100, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
>>>>>> So I move to change it to GPLv2+, for everything that is a "program",
>>>>>> and LGPLv2.1 for everything that may be viewed as a library.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> At least that's how I will correct the wording in the
>>>>>> affected files in the heartbeat mercurial.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In the light of the presented historic excursion, that feels natural.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Assuming no licensors want to speak up, the question now stands:
>>>>> Is it the same conclusion that has been reached by booth and sbd
>>>>> package maintainers (Dejan and Andrew respectively, if I follow what's
>>>>> authoritative nowadays properly) and are these willing to act on it to
>>>>> prevent the mentioned ambiguous interpretation once forever?
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, that's all fine with me.
>>>> 
>>>>> I will be happy to provide actual patches,
>>>> 
>>>> Even better :)
>>> 
>>> Added the "maint: clarify GPLv2.1+ -> GPLv2+ in the license notices"
>>> (e294fa2) commit into https://github.com/ClusterLabs/booth/pull/23
>>> if that's OK with you, Dejan.
>> 
>> I hope we are all on the same page as Andrew went ahead there (thanks).
>> Alas, I've noticed there were some subtleties neglected in there so,
>> with regrets, a separate (and hopefully final) pull request:
>> 
>> https://github.com/ClusterLabs/booth/pull/24
> 
> This got merged too. Thanks!

Neverending story, it seems.  Regrettably, please accept also
https://github.com/ClusterLabs/booth/pull/33 to call this license
clarification effort complete, Dejan.

-- 
Jan (Poki)

Attachment: pgpNOD1IwzaMT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Developers mailing list
Developers@clusterlabs.org
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers

Reply via email to