Re: [ClusterLabs Developers] [booth][sbd] GPLv2.1+ clarification request
On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 04:53:57PM +0200, Jan Pokorný wrote: > 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. Will take a look. Cheers, Dejan > -- > Jan (Poki) > ___ > Developers mailing list > Developers@clusterlabs.org > http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers ___ Developers mailing list Developers@clusterlabs.org http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
Re: [ClusterLabs Developers] [booth][sbd] GPLv2.1+ clarification request
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) pgpNOD1IwzaMT.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Developers mailing list Developers@clusterlabs.org http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
Re: [ClusterLabs Developers] [booth][sbd] GPLv2.1+ clarification request
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 07:12:19PM +0100, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > Hi Jan, > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 06:47:37PM +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > during latest reviews of packages building on core cluster > > infrastructure, it turned out there is a frequented (viral?) issue > > with source files declaring unusual licence: GPLv2.1+. > > Yes, I'd say that it's all coming from a single source. I suspect > that nobody's looking at the license, just copies another source > file from the same project. Anyway, that's what I did in booth. > > Who created the first file with this non-existent license is > anybody's guess. It could probably be traced, but I doubt that > it'd help in any way. Actually it might. I think that what happened was this: in the early days of heartbeat, way back when, source code got "batch tagged" with the license statement: http://hg.linux-ha.org/heartbeat-STABLE_3_0/rev/4a67fde00b0b#l1.10 2000/07/26 05:17:18 Most stuff got tagged with the LGPL 2.1. Some time later, someone noticed that in some cases, a "program" is not a "library", and tried to re-tag e.g. "api_test.c" with the GPL 2, but without properly taking the actual suggested GPL 2 stanza, but by simply dropping "Lesser" and changing "library" to "software". http://hg.linux-ha.org/heartbeat-STABLE_3_0/rev/bc508513c4dc#l2.10 2000/08/31 05:23:36 :-( Both changes predate the GPLv3 by seven years. >From there it propagated to ipfail.c and attrd.c, which both became *the* template files to start from when writing daemons and extensions using the API. Developers quickly browse their "template", their "auto-correct" filter reads "GPL 2", which they are content with, and in good faith they hack away. I think it is safe to assume that any developer copying from there meant to "stay in project" regarding the licensing. 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 libraray. At least that's how I will correct the wording in the affected files in the heartbeat mercurial. -- : Lars Ellenberg : LINBIT | Keeping the Digital World Running : DRBD -- Heartbeat -- Corosync -- Pacemaker : R, Integration, Ops, Consulting, Support DRBD® and LINBIT® are registered trademarks of LINBIT ___ Developers mailing list Developers@clusterlabs.org http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
