>I'm also not sure whether it's legally possible to replace the license text
>without agreement of all authors of the file ... so better don't do a global
>patch for that right now, start with one subsystem instead and see whether
>it gets accepted... or maybe we should only add the SPDX tags, without
>removing the license text? ... this all might require some more discussions
>first ...
I'll put those changes on hold then, for now.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 2:34 PM Thomas Huth <
thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
>Phew, that's a pretty huge patch, could you maybe split it by subsystem /
>folder so that it is easier to review?
Sorry about that. Sure, I'll split the patch in different versions folder wise.
>I'm not sure whether we should update the version in the files that just say
>"LGPL" (and do not mention "Lesser") ... they could also refer to the GNU
>*Library* GPL instead, which was available as version 2 (in the sense of 2.0).
>Could you please drop the hunks for the files that only mention LGPL for now?
Ok. I'll exclude the files which mention just LGPL in the revision.
Chetan.
On 08/10/2020 08.05, Chetan Pant wrote:
> There is no "version 2" of the "Lesser" General Public License. It is
> either "GPL version 2.0" or "LGPL version 2.1". This patch replaces all
> occurrences of "LGPL version 2" with "LGPL version 2.1" in comment section.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chetan Pant <chetan4windows@gmail.com>
Phew, that's a pretty huge patch, could you maybe split it by subsystem /
folder so that it is easier to review?
[...]
> diff --git a/net/hub.h b/net/hub.h
> index ce45f7b..83e33e4 100644
> --- a/net/hub.h
> +++ b/net/hub.h
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
> * Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> * Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> *
> - * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU LGPL, version 2 or later.
> + * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU LGPL, version 2.1 or later.
> * See the COPYING.LIB file in the top-level directory.
> *
> */
I'm not sure whether we should update the version in the files that just say
"LGPL" (and do not mention "Lesser") ... they could also refer to the GNU
*Library* GPL instead, which was available as version 2 (in the sense of 2.0).
Could you please drop the hunks for the files that only mention LGPL for now?
> diff --git a/target/i386/hvf/x86_emu.c b/target/i386/hvf/x86_emu.c
> index d3e289e..da570e3 100644
> --- a/target/i386/hvf/x86_emu.c
> +++ b/target/i386/hvf/x86_emu.c
> @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
> * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
> * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
> - * version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> + * version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> *
> * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
> // This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> // modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
> // License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
> -// version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> +// version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> //
> // This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> // but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
That's an interesting file - the license text shows up twice here... I
wonder whether we could scratch one of the two... but that's also something
for a separate patch, I think.
Thomas