ceph.spec.in: Fix license to GPL-2.0 and use SPDX format
PATCH 1/1 ceph.spec.in: Fix license to GPL-2.0 and use SPDX format
Minor spec file fix. LGPLv2 in spec file is not correct, because some of the included packages/binaries are GPLv2. For example:
src/os/btrfs_ioctl.h -> package ceph, binary ceph-osd
src/mount/mtab.c -> package ceph, binary mount.ceph
src/common/fiemap.cc -> package ceph, binary rbd
Also use SPDX format: http://www.spdx.org/licenses
--- ceph.spec.in | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
ceph.spec.in +1 -1
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ Name: ceph Version: @VERSION@ Release: 6%{?dist} Summary: User space components of the Ceph file system -License: LGPLv2 +License: GPL-2.0 Group: System Environment/Base URL: http://ceph.newdream.net/ Source0: http://ceph.newdream.net/download/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
Signature · 1 line
1.7.9.5
Hi Holger,
Quoted 2 lines · Holger Macht
Minor spec file fix. LGPLv2 in spec file is not correct, because some of the included packages/binaries are GPLv2. For example:
cool.
Quoted 1 line
src/os/btrfs_ioctl.h-> package ceph, binary ceph-osd
<snip-snap>
Quoted 4 lines
+License: GPL-2.0
Group: System Environment/Base
URL: http://ceph.newdream.net/
Source0: http://ceph.newdream.net/download/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
Since you are on it anyway ... it might be worth to change the URL too ... ;-)
Cheers,
Udo
Quoted 4 lines · Holger Macht
Minor spec file fix. LGPLv2 in spec file is not correct, because some of the included packages/binaries are GPLv2. For example:
src/os/btrfs_ioctl.h-> package ceph, binary ceph-osd
My understanding is that including a header file (in this case, to get the ioctl number) does not create a derivative work. Is that incorrect?
Quoted 15 lines
src/mount/mtab.c-> package ceph, binary mount.ceph
src/common/fiemap.cc -> package ceph, binary rbdAlso use SPDX format: http://www.spdx.org/licenses
Signed-off-by Holger Macht <[email protected]>--- ceph.spec.in | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)ceph.spec.in +0
-0
ceph.spec.in Name: ceph · line 20
Quoted 5 lines
ceph.spec.in +1
-1@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ Name: ceph Version: @VERSION@ Release: 6%{?dist} Summary: User space components of the Ceph file system -License: LGPLv2 +License: GPL-2.0
So this is effectively the most restrictive license in the package?
Thanks-
sage
Quoted 12 lines
ceph.spec.in +0
-0Group: System Environment/Base URL: http://ceph.newdream.net/ Source0: http://ceph.newdream.net/download/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2Signature · 6 lines
1.7.9.5 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
That wouldn't seem to make a lot of sense, no.
Matt
Quoted 11 lines · ----- "Sage Weil
Quoted 1 line · Holger Macht
Minor spec file fix. LGPLv2 in spec file is not correct, because
some of
Quoted 3 lines
the included packages/binaries are GPLv2. For example:
src/os/btrfs_ioctl.h-> package ceph, binary ceph-osdMy understanding is that including a header file (in this case, to get the
ioctl number) does not create a derivative work. Is that incorrect?
Signature · 10 lines
Matt Benjamin The Linux Box 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 http://linuxbox.com tel. 734-761-4689 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309
Quoted 8 lines · Sage Weil
Quoted 4 lines · Holger Macht
Minor spec file fix. LGPLv2 in spec file is not correct, because some of the included packages/binaries are GPLv2. For example:
src/os/btrfs_ioctl.h-> package ceph, binary ceph-osdMy understanding is that including a header file (in this case, to get the ioctl number) does not create a derivative work. Is that incorrect?
Guess not, at least from FSF's point of view [1]. I just listed it because our legal team listed it, maybe even via automation. Without looking, there might be other headers from which more (or even real) code is included, though.
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 10 lines
src/mount/mtab.c-> package ceph, binary mount.ceph
src/common/fiemap.cc -> package ceph, binary rbdAlso use SPDX format: http://www.spdx.org/licenses
Signed-off-by Holger Macht <[email protected]>--- ceph.spec.in | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Quoted 12 lines
ceph.spec.in Name: ceph · line 20
Quoted 10 lines
ceph.spec.in +1
-1@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ Name: ceph Version: @VERSION@ Release: 6%{?dist} Summary: User space components of the Ceph file system -License: LGPLv2 +License: GPL-2.0So this is effectively the most restrictive license in the package?
This specific change is only about the base package, what is called ceph-common in deb-based and just ceph in rpm-based distributions.
However, while I'm at it, I'll change the licenses for the other subpackages to SPDX format accordingly and send a new patch. Otherwise I'd like to keep this commit separate from other spec file fixes to preserve the rationale behind it.
Regards Holger
[1] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0301.1/0362.html