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, ifThanks Ian, that was our main concern.
> "or later" has been used.
I had hoped that the SPDX-License-Identifier would be accepted
>> 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.
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.
Yes, that was only about src/winetricks having too many contributors to
> In the discussion of the pull request, Austin says "However
> src/winetricks has had many more authors than just
> myself/Dan/Joseph".
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.
There are also some files with no copyright/license notice at all, but
> 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'
they are all Dan's and Austin's.
No, different persons. But Joseph's file was only affected by the
> 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 ?
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.
That was also my thinking.
> 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.
Yes, indeed.
> I see Austin is happy. So I think you just need agreement from
> Daniel.
> Ian.
Thanks again for the answer!
Greets
jre