xfsprogs/xfsdump: what flavor of GPL...?

[Eric Sandeen]

Fedora is making a push to clarify licensing on all packages -

GPL+, GPLv2, GPLv2+, GPLv3, GPLv3+, LGPLv2, LGPLv2+, LGPLv3, LGPLv3+

are the acceptable license tags for rpm packaging at this point. ("+"
means "or later").

Looking, for example, at mkfs/xfs_mkfs.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.

it makes no mention of GPL _version_.

With all the ruckus lately over GPLv3, could sgi please clarify? Since
the included COPYING file says LGPL 2.1 and GPL2, I assume that LGPLv2
and GPLv2 are appropriate for the package.

It'd be tedious, but you may wish to specify exactly which version of
the license in the actual source files...

Thanks,

-Eric

[Eric Sandeen]

Post by Eric Sandeen
Fedora is making a push to clarify licensing on all packages -
GPL+, GPLv2, GPLv2+, GPLv3, GPLv3+, LGPLv2, LGPLv2+, LGPLv3, LGPLv3+
are the acceptable license tags for rpm packaging at this point. ("+"
means "or later").

Of course, the tag I put on the package is in no way binding for sgi -
it's just supposed to reflect the license inside. But it does point out
a bit of confusion now that gplv3 is on the scene.

I'll follow fedora guidelines & put GPL+ and LGPLv2+ in the field for
now; when I get clarification from SGI I'll fix up if needed.

Thanks,
-Eric

Post by Eric Sandeen
* 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.
it makes no mention of GPL _version_.
With all the ruckus lately over GPLv3, could sgi please clarify? Since
the included COPYING file says LGPL 2.1 and GPL2, I assume that LGPLv2
and GPLv2 are appropriate for the package.
It'd be tedious, but you may wish to specify exactly which version of
the license in the actual source files...
Thanks,
-Eric