Re: RFS: xnbd
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 21.02.2011 11:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> If true, that would be a breach of copyright. NBD is GPL2 *only*, and
> the number of people who have contributed to NBD in the past is too
> numerous to change this anymore (if I had the motivation to do so, which
> I don't).
I contacted the upstream author already and he is willing to fix this
confusion by changing the license agreement to a clear GPL-2 statement.
He said, he uses NBD *headers* only. IANAL but as of my understanding
this makes xNBD a derivate work.
However I suggested him to contact debian-legal for this particular use
case. I don't think he was aware GPL-2+ is different than GPL-2, so this
was not an intentional infringement.
> Please talk to your upstream to get them to clarify this; and while
> you're at it, might want to let them know that I'm always interested in
> taking useful patches for vanilla nbd :-)
I already did for your first concern. When writing him the next time, I
will mention your second as well. :-)
with kind regards,
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x8408D4C4
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----