Re: Licence confirmation for tpcclib

[Purusharth Saxena]

Hey,

I confirmed it with upstream.

The files with GPL 2 license were actually not included in compilation and
>  are now removed. Most of the small files without license are test
> data
>  which obviously cannot be edited to contain license, but I have omitted the
>  license from individual code files too, because I hope it would be
>  sufficient to have GPL3 in the main docs, covering the whole library.
>
>  The winpthreads.md needs to be included with Windows binaries, but that
>  library is not used in other platforms, and thus not relevant to this.
>  
Should I go ahead with GPL3 then?

Regards,
Purusharth S.




On Sat, 9 May 2020 at 00:18, David Cantrell <dcantrell(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 06:11:32PM +0100, J. Randall Owens wrote:
>  >On 08/05/2020 17:33, David Cantrell wrote:
>  >> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:41:36AM +0530, Purusharth Saxena wrote:
>  >>> Hi folks,
>  >>>
>  >>> I'm packaging tpcclib
>  >>> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832562)
>  >>> and as per the review, I wanted to confirm the licence for tpcclib (
>  >>> https://gitlab.utu.fi/vesoik/tpcclib/-/blob/master/license.md)
>  >>> Should it be "GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ "or something else?
>  >>
>  >> The copying.md file includes this:
>  >>
>  >> "This program library 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; either version 3 of the License, or (at your
>  >> option) any
>  >> later version."
>  >>
>  >> The '+' on the GPLv3+ means "GPL version 3 or any later version.
>  >>
>  >> It's also a good idea to check for license text in individual files in
>  the
>  >> project.  For GPL projects, I like to do this:
>  >>
>  >>     find . -type f | xargs grep "General Public"
>  >>
>  >> Which does a more or less ok job of finding files with what is probably
>  >> a GPL
>  >> boilerplate.  That gives me 39 files.  Now, that's all files including
>  >> non-source.  But in this case I am looking for any file that would
>  indicate
>  >> something other than GPLv3+  Further refining:
>  >>
>  >>     find . -type f | xargs grep "General Public" | \
>  >>         cut -d ':' -f 1 | sort | uniq
>  >>
>  >> Gives me 10 files.  I can do this:
>  >>
>  >>     find . -type f | xargs grep "General Public" | \
>  >>         cut -d ':' -f 1 | sort | uniq \
>  >>         xargs grep -i "any later version"
>  >>
>  >> And see it matches 6 files.  So 4 of those original files found lack the
>  >> same
>  >> kind of boilerplate.  Running the previous command and comparing it to
>  what
>  >> was found, I see the sounds files in v1/ and v2/ were left out.
>  >
>  >Side tip: I'm guessing you don't know about `grep -rl`, & maybe a little
>  >`sort -u`? These could be much simplified as:
>  >    grep -rl "General Public"
>  >    grep -rl "General Public" | xargs grep -i "any later
> version"
>  >(which I guess eliminates the `sort | uniq` step anyway).
>
>  I do actually know about those options.  They've just never made it to my
>  muscle memory.  cut(1) is my hammer and stdin are nails.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>
>  In this case, my needlessly exhaustive and verbose command makes it clear
>  to
>  the reader what I'm doing where condensing it with options could be
>  somewhat
>  more confusing depending on the audience.  (though cut is also cryptic to
>  anyone who hasn't used it...oh well)
>
>  Thanks,
>
>  --
>  David Cantrell <dcantrell(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  Red Hat, Inc. | Boston, MA | EST5EDT
>  _______________________________________________
>  devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct:
>  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
>