GNU bug report logs - #26312
[PATCH] gnu: Add cifs-utils.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #17 received at 26312 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Thomas Danckaert <post <at> thomasdanckaert.be>
To: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
Cc: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>, 26312 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26312: [PATCH] gnu: Add cifs-utils.
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 12:52:49 +0200

Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> 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

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.