On Fri, 2016-07-29 at 00:11 +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > Hello James, > > On Thu, 2016-07-28 at 13:26 -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > > 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. > > Yes. But as I understand, the entire Linux [1] code base is GPLv2 > only. No it's not: We have a ton of dual licenced files (dual GPL/BSD is the most common) and quite a few GPLv2+ ones. Of course, all of those have headers explaining the difference from COPYING (or at the very least MODULE_LICENSE tags). > Whereas in case of multipath-tools, as Xose mentioned in the > previous email, it is a mix of: > > * GPLv2 (only?) > * GPLv2+ > * LGPLv2 This is also rather common. Look at the COPYING file of the CRIU project for instance https://github.com/xemul/criu/blob/master/COPYING It has a split GPL/LGPL model depending on which directory the file is placed in. > Having this information in the source repository (not necessarily as > individual source headers) will speak out much clear. > > I think something like Debian's Machine-readable copyright format > will be a good fit in this case. > > https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ > > An example project, with mixed licenses: > http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/libs/libstorage > mgmt/unstable_copyright > > BTW, this topic hit my mind 2 days ago when I looked at the aging > (old format) multipath-tools/debian/copyright in my packaging repo > and wanted to > fix it. > > http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/m/multipath-too > ls/unstable_copyright > > > > I have attached a patch for a copyright file, based on what Xose had > mentioned in the email. There still are files, like libmultipath/pri > oritizers/alua.c, which mention the license as plain GPL. So, this > patch is still not complete. > > > [1] with some minor exceptions I just noticed. That's up to the maintainer of multipath-tools. I was just point out that doing this isn't required or even standard practice. James
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
