[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Acl-devel] [savannah-help-public] [Question] license

From: Mike Frysinger
Subject: Re: [Acl-devel] [savannah-help-public] [Question] license
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 01:44:28 -0400
User-agent: KMail/4.12.3 (Linux/3.13.0; KDE/4.12.3; x86_64; ; )

On Tue 04 Mar 2014 18:00:50 Andreas Grünbacher wrote:
> 2014-03-03 23:24 GMT+01:00 Mike Frysinger:
> > On Sun 02 Mar 2014 11:35:20 박성희 wrote:
> >> Thank you for your quick support.
> >> attr/include/libattr.h is under the GPLv2. So I want to know
> >> is
> >> LGPL or not. Can I judge that this library ( is LGPLv2?
> > 
> > Andreas made these change some time ago.  i think the library itself is
> > supposed to be LGPLv2.1 while the build/programs are GPLv2.
> Yes indeed.
> > So the GPLv2 markings on the files related to the library are most likely
> > an accident.
> It seems to me that libattr.h is the only file with the wrong license
> header, but some of the other license headers refer to both LGPL and GPL. I
> have pushed a fix; could you please check if there are any remaining
> problems?

you fixed the other files i noticed (e.g. the libmisc ones).  we probably also 
need to fix "exports" since that can be construed as source input to the binary output.

probably should clarify the first few lines of doc/COPYING* to say that all 
inputs to the library are expected to be LGPLv2.1 while everything else is 
GPLv2 (e.g. build system, examples, tools, and man pages).

could you push the same kind of fixes to the acl package ?  it seems to have 
the same problems.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]