Hello Christophe, You've merged the GPL/LGPL patch set from Xose. I'd like to understand your intentions. There are >130 files in the multipath-tools source code which don't have a license header. So far my assumption was that these files were covered by COPYING, which used to be LGPLv2.0. By changing COPYING to GPLv2.0, you effectively changed the license of all these files from LPGLv2.0 to GPLv2.0. *Did you mean that*? Or was it your intention that these files are now covered by COPYING.LESSER? If we ship several COPYING files, we need to tell which source files are covered by which one. Without that, the license situation is now even less clear than before. Users might even think that they can freely choose between the two, which isn't the case AFAICT. I was preparing a README document describing the current state of affairs regarding the licensing (along the lines of my "multipath-tools licenses" posting from Mar 23), but this late move of yours leaves me confused. IMHO changing the license would need the consent of the copyright holders, at least those mentioned in the file headers. I'm currently assuming that my previous assessment still holds and source files that have no license header, and for which no other evidence exists, are covered by LGPLv2.0 aka COPYING.LESSER. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Regards, Martin PS: we also need to include the GPLv3.0 text because of the GPLv3.0 license of libdmmp. -- Dr. Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx>, Tel. +49 (0)911 74053 2107 SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
