qemu-trivial
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 1/5] Fixing Lesser GPL version number [1/5]


From: Chetan
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Fixing Lesser GPL version number [1/5]
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 19:55:35 +0530

Hello,

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 6:38 PM Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:
>Thank you for contributing.  However, it will require more work before
>this is ready to merge; while I have a lot of comments below, I hope you
>read them in the intended tone of ideas on making your v2 better.  For
>more thoughts on patch submission, see
>.

Thanks for the remarks Eric, they are definitely going to help me a lot in making v2 better.

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 7:13 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
>I'm happy to queue 80% of this patch, and a patch of patch 2, since
>they cover files in subsystems I maintain and the typos are largely
>my fault :-)

Thanks Daniel, as the idea was to get familiar with the process of sending patches.
I’ll draft and split the patches again as per your and Eric’s comments and then send them again.

Regards,
Chetan P.

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 7:13 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 08:07:52AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:

> > There is no "version 2" of the "Lesser" General Public License. It is
> > either "GPL version 2.0" or "Lesser GPL version 2.1". This patch replaces all
> > occurrences of "Lesser GPL version 2" with "Lesser GPL version 2.1" in comment section.
>
> I'm not a copyright lawyer; there may be legal ramifications for doing
> this on files where you are not the copyright owner, although to me it
> looks like an obvious correction of intent, so I'm okay with the idea.

Yes, we've done exactly this same cleanup for various files before,
and considered it acceptable since it is matching the intent.


> Thus, maybe something like:
>
> backends: Fix LGPL version number
> disas: Fix LGPL version number
> target: Fix LGPL version number
>
> and so on.  There may be a smarter division of the work based on which
> maintainer(s) will have to ack various patches; breaking the series into
> more than 5 chunks may be easier, although it then requires more topic
> lines.  Or, if it truly is automated, doing it all in one shot may be
> best after all.

I'm happy to queue 80% of this patch, and a patch of patch 2, since
they cover files in subsystems I maintain and the typos are largely
my fault :-)



Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]