From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: i2c-tools: library licensing issues Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 07:35:24 +0100 Message-ID: <20171129073524.5596967f@endymion> References: <20171125164717.kg5vv6zsuztr3vkn@aurel32.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60525 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751491AbdK2Gf1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Nov 2017 01:35:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20171125164717.kg5vv6zsuztr3vkn@aurel32.net> Sender: linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org To: Aurelien Jarno Cc: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Hi Aurélien, On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 17:47:17 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > I have been reviewing the i2c-tools licensing, and it seems there is a > contradiction between README and lib/smbus.c about the library > licensing: > > From README: > | The library is released under the LGPL version 2.1 or later, while most > | tools are released under the GPL version 2 or later, but there are a few > | exceptions. > > From lib/smbus.c: > | This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > | 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. > > On the other hand, the license in lib/Module.mk matches the one from > README. > > I guess one of README or lib/smbus.c has to be fixed. Can someone > clarify that? In meantime I think the library as a whole should be > considered as GPL v2 or later. Thanks for pointing out this inconsistency, which I missed. -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support