On 06/06/2012 04:29 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Holger Macht wrote: >> Minor spec file fix. LGPLv2 in spec file is not correct, because some of >> the included packages/binaries are GPLv2. For example: >> >> src/os/btrfs_ioctl.h -> package ceph, binary ceph-osd > > My understanding is that including a header file (in this case, to get the > ioctl number) does not create a derivative work. Is that incorrect? Guess not, at least from FSF's point of view [1]. I just listed it because our legal team listed it, maybe even via automation. Without looking, there might be other headers from which more (or even real) code is included, though. >> src/mount/mtab.c -> package ceph, binary mount.ceph >> src/common/fiemap.cc -> package ceph, binary rbd >> >> Also use SPDX format: http://www.spdx.org/licenses >> >> Signed-off-by: Holger Macht <hmacht@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> ceph.spec.in | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/ceph.spec.in b/ceph.spec.in >> index 81e7040..3b3026d 100644 >> --- a/ceph.spec.in >> +++ b/ceph.spec.in >> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ Name: ceph >> Version: @VERSION@ >> Release: 6%{?dist} >> Summary: User space components of the Ceph file system >> -License: LGPLv2 >> +License: GPL-2.0 > > So this is effectively the most restrictive license in the package? This specific change is only about the base package, what is called ceph-common in deb-based and just ceph in rpm-based distributions. However, while I'm at it, I'll change the licenses for the other subpackages to SPDX format accordingly and send a new patch. Otherwise I'd like to keep this commit separate from other spec file fixes to preserve the rationale behind it. Regards Holger [1] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0301.1/0362.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
