From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52870) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1grN4H-0000Sd-2R for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 08:16:45 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1grMxd-0002m7-5G for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 08:09:54 -0500 References: <1549456893-16589-1-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> <20190206135840.60a2a49f.cohuck@redhat.com> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: <124f9832-6006-06a9-f5fc-41526e37efca@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 14:09:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190206135840.60a2a49f.cohuck@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Cornelia Huck Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, Riku Voipio , Laurent Vivier , Christian Borntraeger On 2019-02-06 13:58, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 13:41:33 +0100 > Thomas Huth wrote: >=20 >> 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? >=20 > FWIW, that statement was added in ccb084d3f0ec ("s390: new > contributions GPLv2 or later"). >=20 >> >> 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." >=20 > 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? Thomas