[ClusterLabs Developers] [booth][sbd] GPLv2.1+ clarification request

[Dejan Muhamedagic]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 05:27:20PM +0200, Jan Pokorný wrote:
> On 24/03/16 17:18 +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote:
> > On 22/03/16 19:18 +0100, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:03:12PM +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote:
> >>> On 18/03/16 16:16 +0100, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> >>>> So I move to change it to GPLv2+, for everything that is a "program",
> >>>> and LGPLv2.1 for everything that may be viewed as a library.
> >>>> 
> >>>> At least that's how I will correct the wording in the
> >>>> affected files in the heartbeat mercurial.
> >>> 
> >>> In the light of the presented historic excursion, that feels natural.
> >>> 
> >>> Assuming no licensors want to speak up, the question now stands:
> >>> Is it the same conclusion that has been reached by booth and sbd
> >>> package maintainers (Dejan and Andrew respectively, if I follow what's
> >>> authoritative nowadays properly) and are these willing to act on it to
> >>> prevent the mentioned ambiguous interpretation once forever?
> >> 
> >> Yes, that's all fine with me.
> >> 
> >>> I will be happy to provide actual patches,
> >> 
> >> Even better :)
> > 
> > Added the "maint: clarify GPLv2.1+ -> GPLv2+ in the license notices"
> > (e294fa2) commit into https://github.com/ClusterLabs/booth/pull/23
> > if that's OK with you, Dejan.
> 
> I hope we are all on the same page as Andrew went ahead there (thanks).
> Alas, I've noticed there were some subtleties neglected in there so,
> with regrets, a separate (and hopefully final) pull request:
> 
> https://github.com/ClusterLabs/booth/pull/24

This got merged too. Thanks!

Dejan

> -- 
> Jan (Poki)



> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> Developers at clusterlabs.org
> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers