Re: [ptxdist] [PATCH 2/2] libnl3: fix license identifier (GPL-2.0-only -> LGPL-2.1-only)

[Andreas Pretzsch <apr@cn-eng.de>]

On Wed, 2019-10-09 at 10:36 +0200, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 9. Oktober 2019, 10:22:02 CEST schrieb Roland Hieber:
> > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:01:50PM +0200, Andreas Pretzsch wrote:
> > > One of the changes 3.4.0 -> 3.5.0 was to add SPDX tags all
> > > across the source files. They are now tagged as LGPL-2.1-only.
> > > 
> > > The lib code itself had written LGPL-2.1-only headers already,
> > > as did most of the commandline tools (src/nf-* and src/nl-*).
> > > Very few of the cli tools have written GPL-2.0-only headers
> > > even now, but the LGPL-2.1-only SPDX tag was added there also.
> > > But given the use of those cli tools, and the meaning of LGPL
> > > for regular executables, they are probably fine as LGPL, too.
> 
> I would consider that as a bug, which should be filed there.

True.

> > > For details, see https://github.com/thom311/libnl/pull/219
> > > It was accepted mainline as commit cee0b1b 'Add SPDX
> > > identifiers'.
> 
> This should not have been accepted that way upstream. :-/

Well, yes. Guess they decided to have a life beside license tags ;-)


> [ file and license debate ]
> 
> FWIW, I created a ticket [1] back in May 2019 after the discussion
> starting here: 
> 
> https://www.mail-archive.com/ptxdist@pengutronix.de/msg14394.html
> [1] https://github.com/thom311/libnl/issues/215

Missed this. Thanks for the pointer, and esp. all the work !
Unfortunately, it somehow got lost / came to no conclusion :-(


> Maybe someone wants to add the correct SPDX identifiers and license
> texts and 
> sent PR to upstream? As far as I could see in upstream PR #219
> already, the 
> maintainer would happily apply those?

Well, guess he will.

But for the example code, he has to get the active permission of
  Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
  Joe Damato <ice799@gmail.com>
as the relevant authors of the code for relicensing.
git log shows no other relevant contributors.

The BSD-3 code, honestly, I have no idea if there is an official route
of just relicensing all this under LGPL-2.1-only, solely for this
specific code distribution.
There might be, in the way of dual-licensing (in this case, add
another, more restrictive license), as long as the original one is
still preserved (and hence the end user has the freedom of choice to
also use the more permissive BSD-3). And choosing LGPL for ones own
usage (and distribution).
But this would be up to lawyers to answer, not me.

And trying to convince a coorporation to relicense, good luck.

Question is, who's volunteering ?
I won't, sorry. Prefer life time over this...
If anything, I'd keep the mess, add the half of dozen license tags, and
call it a night.

Best regards,
  Andreas

-- 

carpe noctem engineering
Ingenieurbuero fuer Hard- & Software-Entwicklung Andreas Pretzsch
Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Andreas Pretzsch        Tel. +49-(0)7307-936088-1
Lange Strasse 28a                       Fax: +49-(0)7307-936088-9
89250 Senden, Germany                   email: apr@cn-eng.de


_______________________________________________
ptxdist mailing list
ptxdist@pengutronix.de