Fix license notices #3
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Based on https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt as of today. Single exception: file content nested in setproctitle.c, keeping original ProFTPD code verbatim incl. the notice
This revision, on behalf of prevailing inclination expressed in the open so far (see below), clarifies previously dubious license notices impacting core source files. Original issue that GPLv2.1 does not resolve to any recognized license was raised at developers ML [1]. Its author also made, in parallel, a best effort to contact contributors to affected files, so that any concerns could be heard. In response, one especially profound, retrospective analysis ensued [2]. Presented historical context (genesis in the heartbeat project [3], spreading from here through copy-paste epidemy into the wider ecosystem inadverently, to "stay in project") shed solid light into what's the most plausible interpretation of "GNU General Public License [...], either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version". Supported also by the fact there's no controversy on the subject so far, this is a mere practical fulfillment of pre-agreed plan[4] to let these two unlucky, extraneous characters in the license notices rest in peace. [1] http://oss.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/developers/2016-March/000172.html (alt. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.clustering.clusterlabs.devel/133) [2] http://oss.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/developers/2016-March/000180.html (alt. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.clustering.clusterlabs.devel/141) [3] http://hg.linux-ha.org/heartbeat-STABLE_3_0/rev/bc508513c4dc#l2.10 [4] http://oss.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/developers/2016-March/000183.html (alt. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.clustering.clusterlabs.devel/145)
Once we got clarified "GPLv2.1+ -> GPLv2+" (rejecting LGPL interpretation, cf. 7090581), we ought to reword "library" references to say "program", in accordance to the standard GPLv2 notice. In the same vein, update Pod documentation to refer to the correct version(s) of GPL.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See 7090581 commit message for details.
An analogy to this at the booth side: