From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Vong Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add mtd-utils. Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 16:07:14 +0800 Message-ID: <87y43a913h.fsf@gmail.com> References: <20160829232414.2538-1-dannym@scratchpost.org> <87eg56r85q.fsf@gmail.com> <20160830103925.6cc58bc2@scratchpost.org> <87oa48k63k.fsf@gnu.org> <20160831233942.32dbd77d@scratchpost.org> <8760qfq0m0.fsf@gnu.org> <877fau4u0l.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49771) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfjVY-000573-Hk for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 04:07:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfjVT-0005Bc-Sk for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 04:07:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <877fau4u0l.fsf@gmail.com> (Alex Kost's message of "Fri, 02 Sep 2016 10:53:46 +0300") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Alex Kost Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Alex Kost writes: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s (2016-09-01 15:13 +0300) wrote: > >> Danny Milosavljevic skribis: >> >>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 22:59:11 +0200 >>> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote: >>> >>>> Are there GPLv2 license headers that lack the =E2=80=9Cor any later ve= rsion=E2=80=9D >>>> wording, or anything that explicitly says =E2=80=9Cversion 2 only=E2= =80=9D? If not, >>>> it=E2=80=99s v2-or-later. >> >> [...] >> >>> ./mkfs.ubifs/crc16.h: ' * Implements the standard CRC-16: * Width 16 * >>> Poly 0x8005 ( x^16 + x^15 + x^2 + 1 ) * Init 0 * * Copyright ( c ) >>> 2005 Ben Gardner * * This code was taken from >>> the linux kernel. The license is GPL Version 2. ' >> >> OK, GPLv2-only! > > Wait, why? There are files that have a full license headers with "or > any later version", for example "docfdisk.c", "flash_erase.c" and > others. That's why I thought both gpl2 and gpl2+ should be listed. I think Ludovic is referring to this gpl compatibility matrix[0]. We have to be careful thought, this only applies to under [AL]*GPL, but not other license (unless explicitly allowed re-licensed under GPL, e.g. MPL). [0]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#AllCompatibility