From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Fri, 17 Aug 2007 06:44:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l7HDiJbm021242 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 06:44:20 -0700 Message-ID: <46C5A63E.5070906@sandeen.net> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:44:30 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: xfsprogs/xfsdump: what flavor of GPL...? References: <46C3CC46.8030005@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <46C3CC46.8030005@redhat.com> 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: Eric Sandeen Cc: xfs-oss Eric Sandeen wrote: > 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"). Of course, the tag I put on the package is in no way binding for sgi - it's just supposed to reflect the license inside. But it does point out a bit of confusion now that gplv3 is on the scene. I'll follow fedora guidelines & put GPL+ and LGPLv2+ in the field for now; when I get clarification from SGI I'll fix up if needed. Thanks, -Eric > 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 > >