On 15 February 2016 at 03:13, Leo Famulari wrote:
> Thanks for the report! I pushed a change that lists the handful of gpl2+
> files and names both licenses.
Even better... I didn't realise that was an option.
Thanks!
T G-R
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 02:47:43AM +0100, tobias.geerinckx.r...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hullo,
>
> It was pointed out to me that the current licence (‘gpl2+’) for
> btrfs-progs is just wrong and should be ‘gpl2’ instead.
>
> I must have opened one of the few gpl2+-licenced files in the tarball
> by sh
Hullo,
It was pointed out to me that the current licence (‘gpl2+’) for
btrfs-progs is just wrong and should be ‘gpl2’ instead.
I must have opened one of the few gpl2+-licenced files in the tarball
by sheer bad luck. Here is a patch to set things right.
Kind regards,
T G-R
(I struggled to write
