Ping? Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> writes:
> [Licensing problem, cc: Anthony] > > Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> writes: > >> Am 13.12.2013 um 14:31 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: >>> On 11/12/2013 06:44 PM, Wenchao Xia wrote: >>> > +++ b/scripts/qapi-event.py >>> > @@ -0,0 +1,355 @@ >>> > +# >>> > +# QAPI event generator >>> > +# >>> > +# Copyright IBM, Corp. 2013 >>> > +# >>> > +# Authors: >>> > +# Wenchao Xia <xiaw...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>> > +# >>> > +# This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPLv2. >>> >>> Can you please use GPLv2+ (that is, add the "or later" clause)? We >>> already have GPLv2-only code, but I don't want to increase the size of >>> that unfortunate license choice. >> >> In fact, it's even worse: >> >> +# This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPLv2. >> +# See the COPYING.LIB file in the top-level directory. >> >> These two lines contradict each other, COPYING.LIB contains the >> LGPL 2.1. The same bad license header is in the other QAPI generator >> scripts, so it's only copy&paste here. > > Specifically: > > File Commit > scripts/qapi-commands.py c17d9908 > scripts/qapi-visit.py fb3182ce > scripts/qapi-types.py 06d64c62 > scripts/qapi.py 0f923be2 > > All four from Michael Roth via Luiz. > >> This doesn't make things easier, because if things are copied, the >> license of the source must be respected. And it seems rather dubious to >> me what this license actually is. If it's GPLv2-only, we can't just >> change it in the new copy. > > IANAL, and I wouldn't dare to judge which of the two conflicting license > claims takes precedence. Possibly neither, and then the files might > technically not be distributable. > > Anyway, this mess needs to be addressed. Michael, what was your > *intended* license? > > If it wasn't GPLv2+, then why? > > Do we need formal ACKs from all contributors to fix the licensing > comment in these four files?
