Re: License audit on dpkg source tree
Hi!
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 09:38:06 +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > Frank would you sign off such change?
>
> Changing the license back from GPL-2 only to GPL-2+?
>
> Yeah, that would be fine by me.
Ok cool, I'll be applying tthe following patch then.
thanks,
guillem
>From 72dcd49ffb8546f35323cfc3d9ff14f2465e9ea1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:20:11 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] libdpkg: Revert license change to GPL2+
The file lib/dpkg/showpkg.c used to be GPL-2+ with all commits with
copyright by Wichert Akkerman, until commit 6e1eb71ebffbbaca2e4bc when
it got changed to GPL-2 only.
Changes afterwards by:
Wichert Akkerman (trivial change):
commit d5e656d9: Removal of an include.
Adam Heath (trivial changes):
commit dbcb7449: Reorder an include;
commit a1d9dc46: Adding a missing “void”, trivial;
Macroifying the unused dumpchain to avoid a
warning, removed in commit 07162068.
Frank Lichtenheld (several changes)
Pierre Habouzit (trivial change):
commit 8ad47fe5: Adding a 'z' to a format string.
Guillem Jover (several changes)
So with approval from Frank and myself, let's revert the license change
in 6e1eb71ebffbbaca2e4bc.
Signed-off-by: Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
Signed-off-by: Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>
---
lib/dpkg/showpkg.c | 5 +++--
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/dpkg/showpkg.c b/lib/dpkg/showpkg.c
index 918274b..bc5c17c 100644
--- a/lib/dpkg/showpkg.c
+++ b/lib/dpkg/showpkg.c
@@ -5,8 +5,9 @@
* Copyright © 2001 Wichert Akkerman <wakkerma@debian.org>
*
* This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- * it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public
- * License version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+ * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
+ * (at your option) any later version.
*
* This is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
--
1.7.0
Reply to: