[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New upstream changing license, typo and SPDX-License-Identifier

On 02/07/2017 09:52 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jens Reyer writes ("New upstream changing license, typo and SPDX-License-Identifier"):
>> 1. LGPL-2+ --> LGPL-2.1+
>> ========================
> There is no problem with this.  Licence version upgrade is routine, if
> "or later" has been used.

Thanks Ian, that was our main concern.

>> 2. SPDX-License-Identifier
>> ==========================
>> Currently some files (small helper scripts, luckily only by authors we
>> can ask for permission) have a custom license notifier for LGPL-2.1 only
>> (but not later).[4]  I'd like to change this (with the authors'
>> permission).  To respect the wish for a short license notice in these
>> files, I've suggested to use the SPDX-License-Identifier instead:
>> -# This software comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
>> -#
>> -# This is free software, placed under the terms of the GNU
>> -# Lesser Public License version 2.1, as published by the Free
>> -# Software Foundation. Please see the file COPYING for details.
>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+
> This is not human-readable.  I would avoid it, personally.
> By "not human-readable" I don't mean that it's not clear what licence
> this refers to.  What it lacks is a clear declaration that the file is
> released under the named licence.
> I would suggest simply adding the missing words:
>   ... Lesser Public License version 2.1 {+ or later +}, as ...
> The intent is then clear, even if a bit abbreviated.

I had hoped that the SPDX-License-Identifier would be accepted
universally, and therefore preferred to something custom.  That doesn't
seem to be true, so I'll now just fix the custom short notice as suggested.

> In the discussion of the pull request, Austin says "However
> src/winetricks has had many more authors than just
> myself/Dan/Joseph".

Yes, that was only about src/winetricks having too many contributors to
change the license.  But this file is only affected by the LGPL-2+ -->
LGPL-2.1+ issue, which you confirmed is ok to be simply fixed.

>  This is true, but it is only these three files
>     Makefile
>     src/linkcheck.sh
>     src/release.sh
> which seem to have the problematic statement, AFAICT.  That's the
> output of
>    git-grep -l 'Lesser Public License' | xargs git-grep -L 'or later'

There are also some files with no copyright/license notice at all, but
they are all Dan's and Austin's.

> So we need only ask the contributors to those files, who are
>     AsciiWolf
>     Austin English
>     daniel.r.kegel[@gmail.com]
> I think AsciiWolf must be Joseph ?

No, different persons.  But Joseph's file was only affected by the
LGPL-2+ --> LGPL-2.1+ (non-)issue.  I erroneously added him to the list
of must-give-permission.  And he gave his ACK anyway in the meantime.

> But anyway that committer
> committed only 4 lines to Makefile in one commit, which is a minimal
> contribution which probably doesn't attract the copyright monopoly.

That was also my thinking.

> I see Austin is happy.  So I think you just need agreement from
> Daniel.

Yes, indeed.

> Ian.

Thanks again for the answer!


Reply to: