On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 02:18:16PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > Hi > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > > > +/* -*- Mode: C; c-basic-offset: 4; indent-tabs-mode: nil -*- */ > > > +/* > > > + * Virt Viewer: A virtual machine console viewer > > > + * > > > + * Copyright (C) 2012 Red Hat, Inc. > > > + * > > > + * 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 > > > > Should we use LGPL here in case we want to move that code to a library? > > > > I wanted to be consistant with the rest of virt-viewer code. I agree in > general that it would be nicer to make virt-viewer LGPL. Daniel, do you > mind having LGPL code for that file? what is your opinion about switching > virt-viewer to LGPL by default? If we did aim to make virt-viewer into a library, then we'd obviously need to switch to LGPLv2+. In absence of such work though, I feel GPLv2+ is still appropriate. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| _______________________________________________ virt-tools-list mailing list virt-tools-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virt-tools-list
