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

Jan Pokorný jpokorny at redhat.com
Wed Mar 30 11:27:20 EDT 2016

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:


Jan (Poki)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20160330/6c69edf9/attachment-0003.sig>

More information about the Developers mailing list