License audit on dpkg source tree

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

License audit on dpkg source tree

Guillem Jover
Hi!

This is something that has been bothering me for a long time, so the
other day I sat down and did a full license audit of the sources.

I've cleaned up the license headers and added missing ones, as a side
effect “licensecheck -r dpkg” works better now. There's still lots of
copyright statements missing, I have a patch around to add few, but
every file takes time digging, and there's probably more urgent things
to tend to. I'd like to get all GPL code unified as GPL-2+,
eventually, though.

The remaining issues, which might need asking people around are:

* scripts/Dpkg/Vendor/Ubuntu.pm:

  Copyright © 2008 Colin Watson <[hidden email]>

  This might actually be © Canonical Ltd.?

* dselect/methods/multicd/*: GPL-2 only

  The dselect-multicd method from the dpkg-multicd package, states on
  its debian/copyright to be based on builtin methods from dselect,
  but then has a license of GPL-2 only, while dselect has GPL-2+.

* dselect/methods/Debian/Dselect/Ftp.pm: No header
  dselect/methods/ftp/*: GPL (no version)

  The dselect-ftp method from the dpkg-ftp package, states on its
  debian/copyright file to be under the GPL-2 only. Ideally this
  would have the same terms as the rest of the code base, in case
  code needs to be reused for example.

* lib/dpkg/utils.c: GPL-2 only

  This file started as GPL-2 only with commit a4f9322a6417e1683183ea
  by Wichert Akkerman, which only included cisdigit() and cisalpha().

  Ian Jackson added a new cisspace() function in commit c91dc9f, and
  refactored the fgets_checked() and fgets_must() functions from
  src/filesdb.c (GPL-2+) in commit b95907e. I'm pretty certian he
  just didn't notice that license header, but to be sure he'd need to
  be asked for confirmation,

  The rest of the changes are trivial.

  The cis* functions are not a problem, I had reaimplemented them
  from scratch some time ago for peformance reasons. And thus will be
  dropped after that commit happens.

* lib/dpkg/showpkg.c: GPL-2 only

  Used to be GPL-2+ with all commits © by Wichert Akkerman, until
  commit 6e1eb71ebffbbaca2e4bc when it changed to GPL-2 only.

  Changes afterwards by:

  Wichert Akkerman (d5e656d: trivial, removal of an include).
  Adam Heath (dbcb744: trivial, reorder an include;
              a1d9dc4: trivial, adding a 'void' and macroifying the
              unused dumpchain to avoid a warning, but I've just removed
              it instead, so it becomes trivial regardless).
  Frank Lichtenheld
  Pierre Habouzit (8ad47fe: trivial, adding a 'z' to a format string).
  Guillem Jover

  So I guess getting permission from Frank and myself and reverting
  6e1eb71ebffbbaca2e4bc should be fine, here?

regards,
guillem


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License audit on dpkg source tree

Guillem Jover
Hi Colin!

On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 18:11:16 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> The remaining issues, which might need asking people around are:

> * scripts/Dpkg/Vendor/Ubuntu.pm:
>
>   Copyright © 2008 Colin Watson <[hidden email]>
>
>   This might actually be © Canonical Ltd.?

Is that the case?

thanks,
guillem


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License audit on dpkg source tree

Guillem Jover
In reply to this post by Guillem Jover
Hi Ian!

On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 18:11:16 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> The remaining issues, which might need asking people around are:

> * lib/dpkg/utils.c: GPL-2 only
>
>   This file started as GPL-2 only with commit a4f9322a6417e1683183ea
>   by Wichert Akkerman, which only included cisdigit() and cisalpha().
>
>   Ian Jackson added a new cisspace() function in commit c91dc9f, and
>   refactored the fgets_checked() and fgets_must() functions from
>   src/filesdb.c (GPL-2+) in commit b95907e. I'm pretty certian he
>   just didn't notice that license header, but to be sure he'd need to
>   be asked for confirmation,

Ian was that the case?

>   The rest of the changes are trivial.
>
>   The cis* functions are not a problem, I had reaimplemented them
>   from scratch some time ago for peformance reasons. And thus will be
>   dropped after that commit happens.

thanks,
guillem


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License audit on dpkg source tree

Guillem Jover
In reply to this post by Guillem Jover
Hi Frank!

On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 18:11:16 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:

> The remaining issues, which might need asking people around are:
>
> * lib/dpkg/showpkg.c: GPL-2 only
>
>   Used to be GPL-2+ with all commits © by Wichert Akkerman, until
>   commit 6e1eb71ebffbbaca2e4bc when it changed to GPL-2 only.
>
>   Changes afterwards by:
>
>   Wichert Akkerman (d5e656d: trivial, removal of an include).
>   Adam Heath (dbcb744: trivial, reorder an include;
>               a1d9dc4: trivial, adding a 'void' and macroifying the
>               unused dumpchain to avoid a warning, but I've just removed
>               it instead, so it becomes trivial regardless).
>   Frank Lichtenheld
>   Pierre Habouzit (8ad47fe: trivial, adding a 'z' to a format string).
>   Guillem Jover
>
>   So I guess getting permission from Frank and myself and reverting
>   6e1eb71ebffbbaca2e4bc should be fine, here?

Frank would you sign off such change?

thanks,
guillem


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License audit on dpkg source tree

Frank Lichtenheld
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 04:20:11AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:

> On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 18:11:16 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > The remaining issues, which might need asking people around are:
> >
> > * lib/dpkg/showpkg.c: GPL-2 only
> >
> >   Used to be GPL-2+ with all commits © by Wichert Akkerman, until
> >   commit 6e1eb71ebffbbaca2e4bc when it changed to GPL-2 only.
> >
> >   Changes afterwards by:
> >
> >   Wichert Akkerman (d5e656d: trivial, removal of an include).
> >   Adam Heath (dbcb744: trivial, reorder an include;
> >               a1d9dc4: trivial, adding a 'void' and macroifying the
> >               unused dumpchain to avoid a warning, but I've just removed
> >               it instead, so it becomes trivial regardless).
> >   Frank Lichtenheld
> >   Pierre Habouzit (8ad47fe: trivial, adding a 'z' to a format string).
> >   Guillem Jover
> >
> >   So I guess getting permission from Frank and myself and reverting
> >   6e1eb71ebffbbaca2e4bc should be fine, here?
>
> Frank would you sign off such change?
Changing the license back from GPL-2 only to GPL-2+?

Yeah, that would be fine by me.

Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <[hidden email]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License audit on dpkg source tree

Colin Watson-2
In reply to this post by Guillem Jover
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 04:13:25AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:

> On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 18:11:16 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > The remaining issues, which might need asking people around are:
>
> > * scripts/Dpkg/Vendor/Ubuntu.pm:
> >
> >   Copyright © 2008 Colin Watson <[hidden email]>
> >
> >   This might actually be © Canonical Ltd.?
>
> Is that the case?

Yeah, looks like I did at least some of this on work time.  Please go
ahead and make that change, although I think it is useful to have
authors documented as well as copyright holders (where there's a
distinction) so you might like to figure out a way to make that clear.

--
Colin Watson                                       [[hidden email]]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License audit on dpkg source tree

Guillem Jover
In reply to this post by Frank Lichtenheld
Hi!

On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 09:38:06 +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > Frank would you sign off such change?
>
> Changing the license back from GPL-2 only to GPL-2+?
>
> Yeah, that would be fine by me.

Ok cool, I'll be applying tthe following patch then.

thanks,
guillem


>From 72dcd49ffb8546f35323cfc3d9ff14f2465e9ea1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Guillem Jover <[hidden email]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:20:11 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] libdpkg: Revert license change to GPL2+

The file lib/dpkg/showpkg.c used to be GPL-2+ with all commits with
copyright by Wichert Akkerman, until commit 6e1eb71ebffbbaca2e4bc when
it got changed to GPL-2 only.

Changes afterwards by:

  Wichert Akkerman (trivial change):

    commit d5e656d9: Removal of an include.

  Adam Heath (trivial changes):

    commit dbcb7449: Reorder an include;
    commit a1d9dc46: Adding a missing “void”, trivial;
                     Macroifying the unused dumpchain to avoid a
                     warning, removed in commit 07162068.

  Frank Lichtenheld (several changes)

  Pierre Habouzit (trivial change):

    commit 8ad47fe5: Adding a 'z' to a format string.

  Guillem Jover (several changes)

So with approval from Frank and myself, let's revert the license change
in 6e1eb71ebffbbaca2e4bc.

Signed-off-by: Frank Lichtenheld <[hidden email]>
Signed-off-by: Guillem Jover <[hidden email]>
---
 lib/dpkg/showpkg.c |    5 +++--
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/dpkg/showpkg.c b/lib/dpkg/showpkg.c
index 918274b..bc5c17c 100644
--- a/lib/dpkg/showpkg.c
+++ b/lib/dpkg/showpkg.c
@@ -5,8 +5,9 @@
  * Copyright © 2001 Wichert Akkerman <[hidden email]>
  *
  * This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- * it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public
- * License version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+ * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
+ * (at your option) any later version.
  *
  * This is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
  * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
--
1.7.0


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100219184744.GA28827@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License audit on dpkg source tree

Guillem Jover
In reply to this post by Colin Watson-2
Hi!

On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 09:29:31 +0000, Colin Watson wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 04:13:25AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 18:11:16 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > The remaining issues, which might need asking people around are:
> >
> > > * scripts/Dpkg/Vendor/Ubuntu.pm:
> > >
> > >   Copyright © 2008 Colin Watson <[hidden email]>
> > >
> > >   This might actually be © Canonical Ltd.?
> >
> > Is that the case?
>
> Yeah, looks like I did at least some of this on work time.  Please go
> ahead and make that change, although I think it is useful to have
> authors documented as well as copyright holders (where there's a
> distinction) so you might like to figure out a way to make that clear.

Well if some was on your own, then that'd be your copyright no? or was
it not significant enough? Anyway I don't mind having to cook another
patch with just adding Canonical, though. Also, sure yeah I also prefer
to acknowledge who wrote what even when they might not hold the
copyright for it.

Anyway, the following patch is what I'll be applying if I don't hear
otherwise.

thanks,
guillem


>From d5baca0d5ea920b3911a2f94761ec713fd26a8f5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Guillem Jover <[hidden email]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:33:43 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] libdpkg-perl: Fix Canonical copyright statement

The work Colin did was under Canonical's time.

Signed-off-by: Colin Watson <[hidden email]>
Signed-off-by: Guillem Jover <[hidden email]>
---
 scripts/Dpkg/Vendor/Ubuntu.pm |    3 ++-
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/scripts/Dpkg/Vendor/Ubuntu.pm b/scripts/Dpkg/Vendor/Ubuntu.pm
index 000d59e..54bee12 100644
--- a/scripts/Dpkg/Vendor/Ubuntu.pm
+++ b/scripts/Dpkg/Vendor/Ubuntu.pm
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
 # Copyright © 2008 Ian Jackson <[hidden email]>
-# Copyright © 2008 Colin Watson <[hidden email]>
+# Copyright © 2008 Canonical, Ltd.
+#   Written by Colin Watson <[hidden email]>
 # Copyright © 2008 James Westby <[hidden email]>
 # Copyright © 2009 Raphaël Hertzog <[hidden email]>
 #
--
1.7.0


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100219185952.GB28827@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License audit on dpkg source tree

Colin Watson-2
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 07:59:52PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 09:29:31 +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Yeah, looks like I did at least some of this on work time.  Please go
> > ahead and make that change, although I think it is useful to have
> > authors documented as well as copyright holders (where there's a
> > distinction) so you might like to figure out a way to make that clear.
>
> Well if some was on your own, then that'd be your copyright no? or was
> it not significant enough?

I don't recall it being significant.  The patch you sent is fine by me.

(The same may apply to Ian's and James' contributions to this file, but
you'd have to ask them about that.)

--
Colin Watson                                       [[hidden email]]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100219212947.GL4409@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License audit on dpkg source tree

Guillem Jover
On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 21:29:47 +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> I don't recall it being significant.  The patch you sent is fine by me.

Thanks committed.

> (The same may apply to Ian's and James' contributions to this file, but
> you'd have to ask them about that.)

I thought about that too, but as the mail addresses didn't seem
suspicious I ignored them, but yeah, I should have erred on the side
of doubt, will be asking them, thanks!

regards,
guillem


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100227030022.GE27896@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License audit on dpkg source tree

Guillem Jover
In reply to this post by Guillem Jover
On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 19:47:44 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Ok cool, I'll be applying tthe following patch then.

This is done now.

thanks,
guillem


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100227030142.GF27896@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License audit on dpkg source tree

Raphael Hertzog-3
In reply to this post by Guillem Jover
Hi,

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Guillem Jover wrote:

> Hi!
>
> This is something that has been bothering me for a long time, so the
> other day I sat down and did a full license audit of the sources.
>
> I've cleaned up the license headers and added missing ones, as a side
> effect “licensecheck -r dpkg” works better now. There's still lots of
> copyright statements missing, I have a patch around to add few, but
> every file takes time digging, and there's probably more urgent things
> to tend to. I'd like to get all GPL code unified as GPL-2+,
> eventually, though.
>
> The remaining issues, which might need asking people around are:
>
> * dselect/methods/multicd/*: GPL-2 only
>
>   The dselect-multicd method from the dpkg-multicd package, states on
>   its debian/copyright to be based on builtin methods from dselect,
>   but then has a license of GPL-2 only, while dselect has GPL-2+.
>
> * dselect/methods/Debian/Dselect/Ftp.pm: No header
>   dselect/methods/ftp/*: GPL (no version)
>
>   The dselect-ftp method from the dpkg-ftp package, states on its
>   debian/copyright file to be under the GPL-2 only. Ideally this
>   would have the same terms as the rest of the code base, in case
>   code needs to be reused for example.

I'm ccing all the people listed in the copyright. Please respond and
tell us whether you agree to change the license of your code to "GPLv2 or
later" instead of the "GPLv2 only"?

I'm expecting some bounces, most likely that the email of Andy Guy and
Heiko Schlitterman are not valid anymore. I found an alternative email for
Heiko but no clear trace of Andy Guy (the name is quite common
unfortunately). Does anyone know how to contact him?

As far I am concerned, I agree with changing the license of all my code to
GPLv2 or later.

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog

Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/
My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100415132140.GB3084@rivendell

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License audit on dpkg source tree

Joey Schulze
Raphael Hertzog wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > This is something that has been bothering me for a long time, so the
> > other day I sat down and did a full license audit of the sources.
> >
> > I've cleaned up the license headers and added missing ones, as a side
> > effect ???licensecheck -r dpkg??? works better now. There's still lots of
> > copyright statements missing, I have a patch around to add few, but
> > every file takes time digging, and there's probably more urgent things
> > to tend to. I'd like to get all GPL code unified as GPL-2+,
> > eventually, though.
> >
> > The remaining issues, which might need asking people around are:
> >
> > * dselect/methods/multicd/*: GPL-2 only
> >
> >   The dselect-multicd method from the dpkg-multicd package, states on
> >   its debian/copyright to be based on builtin methods from dselect,
> >   but then has a license of GPL-2 only, while dselect has GPL-2+.
> >
> > * dselect/methods/Debian/Dselect/Ftp.pm: No header
> >   dselect/methods/ftp/*: GPL (no version)
> >
> >   The dselect-ftp method from the dpkg-ftp package, states on its
> >   debian/copyright file to be under the GPL-2 only. Ideally this
> >   would have the same terms as the rest of the code base, in case
> >   code needs to be reused for example.
>
> I'm ccing all the people listed in the copyright. Please respond and
> tell us whether you agree to change the license of your code to "GPLv2 or
> later" instead of the "GPLv2 only"?
I agree.

Regards,

        Joey

--
The MS-DOS filesystem is nice for removable media.  -- H. Peter Anvin

signature.asc (197 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License audit on dpkg source tree

Heiko Schlittermann (HS12-RIPE)
In reply to this post by Raphael Hertzog-3
Hi,

Raphael Hertzog <[hidden email]> (Do 15 Apr 2010 15:21:40 CEST):
>
> I'm expecting some bounces, most likely that the email of Andy Guy and
> Heiko Schlitterman are not valid anymore. I found an alternative email for
> Heiko but no clear trace of Andy Guy (the name is quite common
> unfortunately). Does anyone know how to contact him?

[hidden email] is the most correct address.

> As far I am concerned, I agree with changing the license of all my code to
> GPLv2 or later.

Me too.

--
Heiko

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License audit on dpkg source tree

Ian Jackson-2
In reply to this post by Guillem Jover
Guillem Jover writes ("Re: License audit on dpkg source tree"):

> On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 18:11:16 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > The remaining issues, which might need asking people around are:
>
> > * lib/dpkg/utils.c: GPL-2 only
> >
> >   This file started as GPL-2 only with commit a4f9322a6417e1683183ea
> >   by Wichert Akkerman, which only included cisdigit() and cisalpha().
> >
> >   Ian Jackson added a new cisspace() function in commit c91dc9f, and
> >   refactored the fgets_checked() and fgets_must() functions from
> >   src/filesdb.c (GPL-2+) in commit b95907e. I'm pretty certian he
> >   just didn't notice that license header, but to be sure he'd need to
> >   be asked for confirmation,
>
> Ian was that the case?
>
> >   The rest of the changes are trivial.
> >
> >   The cis* functions are not a problem, I had reaimplemented them
> >   from scratch some time ago for peformance reasons. And thus will be
> >   dropped after that commit happens.

Anything in the dpkg source tree with my copyright should be GPLv2+.

Anything there which seems to be marked GPLv2-only represents some
kind of administrative mistake, and the copyright notice can be
changed to GPLv2+.

Ian.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License audit on dpkg source tree

Guillem Jover
Hi!

On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 20:41:26 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

> Guillem Jover writes ("Re: License audit on dpkg source tree"):
> > On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 18:11:16 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > The remaining issues, which might need asking people around are:
> >
> > > * lib/dpkg/utils.c: GPL-2 only
> > >
> > >   This file started as GPL-2 only with commit a4f9322a6417e1683183ea
> > >   by Wichert Akkerman, which only included cisdigit() and cisalpha().
> > >
> > >   Ian Jackson added a new cisspace() function in commit c91dc9f, and
> > >   refactored the fgets_checked() and fgets_must() functions from
> > >   src/filesdb.c (GPL-2+) in commit b95907e. I'm pretty certian he
> > >   just didn't notice that license header, but to be sure he'd need to
> > >   be asked for confirmation,
> >
> > Ian was that the case?
>
> Anything in the dpkg source tree with my copyright should be GPLv2+.
>
> Anything there which seems to be marked GPLv2-only represents some
> kind of administrative mistake, and the copyright notice can be
> changed to GPLv2+.
Thanks! I'm going to push the attached patch. Hope the S-o-b is fine.

Regards,
Guillem

0001-libdpkg-Fix-inadvertent-license-change-back-from-GPL.patch (3K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License audit on dpkg source tree

Guillem Jover
In reply to this post by Heiko Schlittermann (HS12-RIPE)
Hi!

On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 15:21:40 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > I've cleaned up the license headers and added missing ones, as a side
> > effect “licensecheck -r dpkg” works better now. There's still lots of
> > copyright statements missing, I have a patch around to add few, but
> > every file takes time digging, and there's probably more urgent things
> > to tend to. I'd like to get all GPL code unified as GPL-2+,
> > eventually, though.

> > * dselect/methods/multicd/*: GPL-2 only
> >
> >   The dselect-multicd method from the dpkg-multicd package, states on
> >   its debian/copyright to be based on builtin methods from dselect,
> >   but then has a license of GPL-2 only, while dselect has GPL-2+.

> I'm ccing all the people listed in the copyright. Please respond and
> tell us whether you agree to change the license of your code to "GPLv2 or
> later" instead of the "GPLv2 only"?

> As far I am concerned, I agree with changing the license of all my code to
> GPLv2 or later.

On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 15:30:41 +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I agree.

On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 16:11:49 +0200, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
> Me too.

On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 20:41:26 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Anything in the dpkg source tree with my copyright should be GPLv2+.
>
> Anything there which seems to be marked GPLv2-only represents some
> kind of administrative mistake, and the copyright notice can be
> changed to GPLv2+.

Thanks all! I'm going to push the attached patch. Hope the S-o-b are
fine.

Regards,
Guillem

0001-dselect-Switch-multicd-method-license-from-GPL2-to-G.patch (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License audit on dpkg source tree

Raphael Hertzog-3
Hi,

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Thanks all! I'm going to push the attached patch. Hope the S-o-b are
> fine.

Sure, fine for me.

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Support Debian LTS: http://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
Learn to master Debian: http://debian-handbook.info/get/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License audit on dpkg source tree

Ian Jackson-2
In reply to this post by Guillem Jover
[resent; first copy failed due to mua bug]

Guillem Jover writes ("Re: License audit on dpkg source tree"):
> Thanks all! I'm going to push the attached patch. Hope the S-o-b are
> fine.

LGTM, thanks.

(If at some point you feel like updating my email address in the
various notices, to [hidden email], please do.  But
it's not important so only do it if it's very easy.)

Thanks,
Ian.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License audit on dpkg source tree

Guillem Jover
Hi!

On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 15:21:29 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> (If at some point you feel like updating my email address in the
> various notices, to [hidden email], please do.  But
> it's not important so only do it if it's very easy.)

I've done this now, except for the ones in changelogs, will push later
today.

Thanks,
Guillem

12