[PATCH] ceph.spec.in: Fix license to GPL-2.0 and use SPDX format

[PATCH] ceph.spec.in: Fix license to GPL-2.0 and use SPDX format

[Holger Macht]

Minor spec file fix. LGPLv2 in spec file is not correct, because some of
the included packages/binaries are GPLv2. For example:

 src/os/btrfs_ioctl.h -> package ceph, binary ceph-osd
 src/mount/mtab.c     -> package ceph, binary mount.ceph
 src/common/fiemap.cc -> package ceph, binary rbd

Also use SPDX format: http://www.spdx.org/licenses

Signed-off-by: Holger Macht <hmacht@suse.de>
---
 ceph.spec.in |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/ceph.spec.in b/ceph.spec.in
index 81e7040..3b3026d 100644
--- a/ceph.spec.in
+++ b/ceph.spec.in
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ Name:		ceph
 Version:	@VERSION@
 Release:	6%{?dist}
 Summary:	User space components of the Ceph file system
-License:	LGPLv2
+License:	GPL-2.0
 Group:		System Environment/Base
 URL:		http://ceph.newdream.net/
 Source0:	http://ceph.newdream.net/download/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [PATCH] ceph.spec.in: Fix license to GPL-2.0 and use SPDX format

[Udo Seidel]

Hi Holger,

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Holger Macht wrote:

> Minor spec file fix. LGPLv2 in spec file is not correct, because some of
> the included packages/binaries are GPLv2. For example:

cool.


> src/os/btrfs_ioctl.h -> package ceph, binary ceph-osd

<snip-snap>

> +License:	GPL-2.0
> Group:		System Environment/Base
> URL:		http://ceph.newdream.net/
> Source0:	http://ceph.newdream.net/download/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2

Since you are on it anyway ... it might be worth to change the URL too ... 
;-)

Cheers,
Udo

Re: [PATCH] ceph.spec.in: Fix license to GPL-2.0 and use SPDX format

[Sage Weil]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Holger Macht wrote:
> Minor spec file fix. LGPLv2 in spec file is not correct, because some of
> the included packages/binaries are GPLv2. For example:
> 
>  src/os/btrfs_ioctl.h -> package ceph, binary ceph-osd

My understanding is that including a header file (in this case, to get the 
ioctl number) does not create a derivative work.  Is that incorrect?

>  src/mount/mtab.c     -> package ceph, binary mount.ceph
>  src/common/fiemap.cc -> package ceph, binary rbd
> 
> Also use SPDX format: http://www.spdx.org/licenses
> 
> Signed-off-by: Holger Macht <hmacht@suse.de>
> ---
>  ceph.spec.in |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/ceph.spec.in b/ceph.spec.in
> index 81e7040..3b3026d 100644
> --- a/ceph.spec.in
> +++ b/ceph.spec.in
> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ Name:		ceph
>  Version:	@VERSION@
>  Release:	6%{?dist}
>  Summary:	User space components of the Ceph file system
> -License:	LGPLv2
> +License:	GPL-2.0

So this is effectively the most restrictive license in the package?

Thanks-
sage

>  Group:		System Environment/Base
>  URL:		http://ceph.newdream.net/
>  Source0:	http://ceph.newdream.net/download/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
> -- 
> 1.7.9.5
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH] ceph.spec.in: Fix license to GPL-2.0 and use SPDX format

[Matt W. Benjamin]

That wouldn't seem to make a lot of sense, no.

Matt

----- "Sage Weil" <sage@inktank.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Holger Macht wrote:
> > Minor spec file fix. LGPLv2 in spec file is not correct, because
> some of
> > the included packages/binaries are GPLv2. For example:
> > 
> >  src/os/btrfs_ioctl.h -> package ceph, binary ceph-osd
> 
> My understanding is that including a header file (in this case, to get
> the 
> ioctl number) does not create a derivative work.  Is that incorrect?
> 


-- 
Matt Benjamin
The Linux Box
206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI  48104

http://linuxbox.com

tel. 734-761-4689
fax. 734-769-8938
cel. 734-216-5309

Re: [PATCH] ceph.spec.in: Fix license to GPL-2.0 and use SPDX format

[Holger Macht]

On 06/06/2012 04:29 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Holger Macht wrote:
>> Minor spec file fix. LGPLv2 in spec file is not correct, because some of
>> the included packages/binaries are GPLv2. For example:
>>
>>  src/os/btrfs_ioctl.h -> package ceph, binary ceph-osd
> 
> My understanding is that including a header file (in this case, to get the 
> ioctl number) does not create a derivative work.  Is that incorrect?

Guess not, at least from FSF's point of view [1]. I just listed it
because our legal team listed it, maybe even via automation. Without
looking, there might be other headers from which more (or even real)
code is included, though.

>>  src/mount/mtab.c     -> package ceph, binary mount.ceph
>>  src/common/fiemap.cc -> package ceph, binary rbd
>>
>> Also use SPDX format: http://www.spdx.org/licenses
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Holger Macht <hmacht@suse.de>
>> ---
>>  ceph.spec.in |    2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/ceph.spec.in b/ceph.spec.in
>> index 81e7040..3b3026d 100644
>> --- a/ceph.spec.in
>> +++ b/ceph.spec.in
>> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ Name:		ceph
>>  Version:	@VERSION@
>>  Release:	6%{?dist}
>>  Summary:	User space components of the Ceph file system
>> -License:	LGPLv2
>> +License:	GPL-2.0
> 
> So this is effectively the most restrictive license in the package?

This specific change is only about the base package, what is called
ceph-common in deb-based and just ceph in rpm-based distributions.

However, while I'm at it, I'll change the licenses for the other
subpackages to SPDX format accordingly and send a new patch. Otherwise
I'd like to keep this commit separate from other spec file fixes to
preserve the rationale behind it.

Regards Holger

[1] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0301.1/0362.html