On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 14:10:03 +0200, Ondřej Lysoněk wrote: > Hi, > > On 29.11.2017 07:35, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Hi Aurélien, > > > > On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 17:47:17 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > >> I have been reviewing the i2c-tools licensing, and it seems there is a > >> contradiction between README and lib/smbus.c about the library > >> licensing: > >> > >> From README: > >> | The library is released under the LGPL version 2.1 or later, while most > >> | tools are released under the GPL version 2 or later, but there are a few > >> | exceptions. > >> > >> From lib/smbus.c: > >> | This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > >> | it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by > >> | the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or > >> | (at your option) any later version. > >> > >> On the other hand, the license in lib/Module.mk matches the one from > >> README. > >> > >> I guess one of README or lib/smbus.c has to be fixed. Can someone > >> clarify that? In meantime I think the library as a whole should be > >> considered as GPL v2 or later. > > > > Thanks for pointing out this inconsistency, which I missed. > > So how is this going to be resolved? Can the original authors of the > smbus.c contents be reached so that we can re-license it to LGPL? Or > should the README simply get corrected? Sorry for the delay, I should have fixed that long ago. Thanks for the reminder. I have prepared a patch, I'll post it for review in a minute. -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support
