[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#26312: [PATCH] gnu: Add cifs-utils.
From: |
Thomas Danckaert |
Subject: |
bug#26312: [PATCH] gnu: Add cifs-utils. |
Date: |
Sun, 02 Apr 2017 12:52:49 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) |
Marius Bakke <address@hidden> writes:
> Could you mention which files, since it's only three? I also think
> listing both lgpl2.1+ and lgpl3+ is redundant; if these source files
> interact in some way the result is effectively lgpl3+. If the LGPL2.1+
> code is what is installed, I would pick that since it implies LGPL3+.
The files are source/util.{h,c} (lgpl2.1+), and source/cifs_spnego.h
(lgpl3+), I'll add that in a comment.
About the lgpl2.1+ vs lgpl3+ thing, I'm a bit confused about what we
actually want to communicate with the license field (and probably about
license issues in general). As far as I know, all code (lgpl2.1+ and
lgpl3+ files) is installed (compiled). Because the rest of the code is
GPL3+, I think a linked binary (e.g. a substitute from hydra) can only
be distributed as GPL3+? In addition to that, there are 3 source files,
which can are individually licensed as LGPL2.1+ and LGPL3+, which why we
specify a list of licenses, I thought? In that case I don't really
understand why mentioning only lgpl2.1+ would be sufficient (lgpl3+ is
more strict?).
I'm just trying to understand so I get this stuff right the next time...
Not counting the license itself, the lgpl3+ file is only 25 lines :-)
cheers,
Thomas