Invalid SPDX License Identifier for test/lib/strlcat.c

Invalid SPDX License Identifier for test/lib/strlcat.c

[Diederik de Haas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 246 bytes --]

Hi,

The file ``test/lib/strlcat.c`` has "SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.1+"
and that SPDX identifier doesn't exist.
As there is no indication this was a typo it needs to be relicensed by
the copyright holders AFAIK.

Cheers,
  Diederik

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: Invalid SPDX License Identifier for test/lib/strlcat.c

[Sean Anderson]

Hi,

On 3/1/25 04:39, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The file ``test/lib/strlcat.c`` has "SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.1+"
> and that SPDX identifier doesn't exist.
> As there is no indication this was a typo it needs to be relicensed by
> the copyright holders AFAIK.
> 
> Cheers,
>    Diederik

As noted in the comment, this is adapted from glibc. The referenced file is
licensed LGPL 2.1+. So license in this file should really be whatever the
compatible version of the GPL is (I guess 2.0+).

--Sean

Re: Invalid SPDX License Identifier for test/lib/strlcat.c

[Diederik de Haas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1266 bytes --]

Hi,

On Sat Mar 1, 2025 at 3:54 PM CET, Sean Anderson wrote:
> On 3/1/25 04:39, Diederik de Haas wrote:
>> The file ``test/lib/strlcat.c`` has "SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.1+"
>> and that SPDX identifier doesn't exist.
>> As there is no indication this was a typo it needs to be relicensed by
>> the copyright holders AFAIK.
>
> As noted in the comment, this is adapted from glibc. The referenced file is
> licensed LGPL 2.1+. So license in this file should really be whatever the
> compatible version of the GPL is (I guess 2.0+).
>
> --Sean

IANAL, so I searched a bit which led me via SE [1] (and answers further
down) to the GPL-FAQ [2] which has a link to footnote 7:

  7: LGPLv2.1 gives you permission to relicense the code under any
  version of the GPL since GPLv2. If you can switch the LGPLed code in
  this case to using an appropriate version of the GPL instead (as
  noted in the table), you can make this combination.

So I'm guessing you're right. 
FWIW, all the other files under ``test/lib/`` are licensed GPL-2.0+.

Cheers,
  Diederik

[1] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5664/linking-from-lgpl-2-1-software-to-apache-2-0-library#5756
[2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]