On Thu, 2016-07-28 at 22:23 +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > Thanks Xose, for digging this information. But shouldn't this > information go into respective source files? If there's a COPYING file, there's no need for individual files to have a copyright. The licence of the file defaults to whatever COPYING (or LICENCE or some recognizable top level file says). A significant number of Linux Kernel files don't have individual file header copyrigh ts, if you want an example of this. > Recently, at Debconf, I came aware of Fossology [1]. It is a > compliance tool for license, copyright and export control scans. I > have spawned off a job [2] and am curious of the result. But looks > like their server may be having a problem at the moment. > > But it is standard practise in most Free Software projects to define > the licensing proper. And for a project with mixed licenses, it'd be > best to have individual source files mention their license. > It may be a best practice and even practised by some projects, but if Linux doesn't do it, it's hard to say it's standard practice. James > [1] https://www.fossology.org/ > [2] http://52.26.97.143/repo/?mod=showjobs > > > On Thu, 2016-07-28 at 00:19 +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > > On 07/27/2016 12:42 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > > > > > > > > I just ran some compliance tools on multipath and the results > > > weren't very > > > appealing in regard to licensing and copyright information. > > > > > > The standard COPYING file mentions LGPL v2. > > > On the other hand, the majority of the source code has no license > > > mentioned > > > in > > > its header. Some that do have, mention it as GPLv2, and some as > > > GPLv2+ > > > > "No copyright" or "UNKNOWN" files should be covered by COPYING > > licence(LGPL > > v2). > > Except: > > > > kpartx/ > > It comes from partx(util-linux), and these files are under "GPL v2" > > or > > "GPL v2 or later". Independent binary. > > > > > > libmultipath/prioritizers/ontap.c > > It's "GPL v2". But it's a plugin. ??? > > > > > > libmultipath/checkers/cciss_tur.c > > Source says "GPL v2 or later", and: > > /* > > * This program originally derived from and inspired by > > * Christophe Varoqui's tur.c, part of libchecker. > > */ > > At libmultipath/checkers/tur.c there is no licence, but it's > > derived from > > src/sg_turs.c > > from sg3_utils. And this one is under "GPL v2 or later". But it's a > > plugin. > > ??? > > > > > > libmultipath/memory.c > > libmultipath/memory.h > > libmultipath/parser.c > > libmultipath/parser.h > > libmultipath/vector.c > > libmultipath/vector.h > > These comes from keepalived, and they are under "GPL v2 or later". > > > > > > libmultipath/version.h: > > "GPL v2 or later". > > > > > > libmultipath/file.c > > libmultipath/alias.c > > Source says: > > /* > > * significant parts of this file were taken from iscsi-bindings.c > > of the > > * linux-iscsi project. > > And they are under "GPL v2 or later". > > > > > > libmultipath/uevent.c > > libmultipath/sysfs.c > > These come from udev, and they are "GPL v2". > > > > > > GPL code can not be mixed with LGPL code. So I guess libmultipath/ > > files are > > "GPL v2" ??? > > > > > > multipath/main.c > > Under "GPL v2 or later". It's linked with libmultipath.so and > > libmpathcmd.so. > -- > dm-devel mailing list > dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
