From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52568) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1grN3P-0008Lh-1m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 08:15:51 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1grN3N-0005Cs-Us for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 08:15:51 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 14:15:38 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20190206141538.65852cec.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <124f9832-6006-06a9-f5fc-41526e37efca@redhat.com> References: <1549456893-16589-1-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> <20190206135840.60a2a49f.cohuck@redhat.com> <124f9832-6006-06a9-f5fc-41526e37efca@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] s390x: Fix the confusing contributions-after-2012 license statements List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, Riku Voipio , Laurent Vivier , Christian Borntraeger On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 14:09:40 +0100 Thomas Huth wrote: > On 2019-02-06 13:58, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 13:41:33 +0100 > > Thomas Huth wrote: > > > >> The license information in these files is rather confusing. The text > >> declares LGPL first, but then says that contributions after 2012 are > >> licensed under the GPL instead. How should the average user who just > >> downloaded the release tarball know which part is now GPL and which > >> is LGPL? > > > > FWIW, that statement was added in ccb084d3f0ec ("s390: new > > contributions GPLv2 or later"). > > > >> > >> Looking at the text of the LGPL (see COPYING.LIB in the top directory), > >> the license clearly states how this should be done instead: > >> > >> "3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public > >> License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do > >> this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so > >> that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, > >> instead of to this License." > > > > Hm. This talks about GPL v2, not GPL v2-or-later... > > IANAL, but since all the files originally were licensed under > LGPLv2-or-later, that should not be an issue, as far as I can see: You > then could also upgrade the LGPLv2-or-later code to LGPLv3-or-later, > which in turn allows you to license under GPLv3. So LGPLv2-or-later > means you can put the code also under GPLv2-or-later. Or do I miss > something? That would seem logical, but IANAL, either... Anyway, I'd be happy to queue this if I get acks :)