From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:31:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [66.187.233.31]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l7G4VJbm004337 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:31:22 -0700 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l7G428X1030225 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:02:08 -0400 Received: from pobox-2.corp.redhat.com (pobox-2.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l7G428rQ027228 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:02:08 -0400 Received: from Liberator.local (sebastian-int.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.221]) by pobox-2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l7G427us016409 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:02:08 -0400 Message-ID: <46C3CC46.8030005@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:02:14 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: xfsprogs/xfsdump: what flavor of GPL...? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: xfs-oss Fedora is making a push to clarify licensing on all packages - GPL+, GPLv2, GPLv2+, GPLv3, GPLv3+, LGPLv2, LGPLv2+, LGPLv3, LGPLv3+ are the acceptable license tags for rpm packaging at this point. ("+" means "or later"). Looking, for example, at mkfs/xfs_mkfs.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. it makes no mention of GPL _version_. With all the ruckus lately over GPLv3, could sgi please clarify? Since the included COPYING file says LGPL 2.1 and GPL2, I assume that LGPLv2 and GPLv2 are appropriate for the package. It'd be tedious, but you may wish to specify exactly which version of the license in the actual source files... Thanks, -Eric