On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 13:55:27 -0400 Xavier Chantry <chantry.xav...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 6:42 PM, <edmeiste...@hushmail.com> >wrote: >> Hello pacman team! >> >> I've been following development for quite some time, and would >like >> to submit my package signing patches for review. >> > >Out of curiosity, what do these patches accomplish exactly ?
Bindings for openssl implemented in the backend (alpm). > >> However, since some of the files are entirely new, they would >have >> a license header. I would like to know under what license should >I >> release my work. >> >> I bring this up because during this time I overlooked the >inclusion >> of the rankmirrors script, which I've now noticed to be GPL v3 >code. >> >> Should my files be GPL v2 or v3? >> > >Why don't you use the same header that all C files in pacman have, >which is "gpl v2 or later" ? You see, "or later" includes v3. And since I want to keep up to date with RMS' licenses, I prefer v3. Because of this, I'd like to know if v3 is acceptable before releasing my work. Some of v2 is sadly susceptible to loopholes.