From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47795) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cud93-00006s-WC for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Apr 2017 06:54:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cud90-0001KI-Tz for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Apr 2017 06:54:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:58259) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cud90-0001K0-Q5 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Apr 2017 06:54:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cud90-0001JR-FC for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Apr 2017 06:54:02 -0400 Subject: bug#26312: [PATCH] gnu: Add cifs-utils. Resent-Message-ID: From: Thomas Danckaert References: <20170330.174824.1172310425105438058.post@thomasdanckaert.be> <354af52f-2759-f845-316d-4b4577413a42@tobias.gr> <87lgrkavxy.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 12:52:49 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87lgrkavxy.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> (Marius Bakke's message of "Sat, 01 Apr 2017 19:18:01 +0200") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Marius Bakke Cc: 26312@debbugs.gnu.org Marius Bakke 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