stats-bodhi license

[Adam Williamson]

I'm back working on moving fedora-qa to Pagure. I'm now dealing with
the 'stats' scripts, and there's a problem: it appears that stats-bodhi 
has never actually been properly licensed. It has no license header or
license text, and AFAICS, never has. I can't simply declare it to be
F/OSS licensed, as I didn't write it.

Can Lukas or Kamil give us a license declaration for this code? Thanks!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2016-11-03 at 14:41 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  I'm back working on moving fedora-qa to Pagure. I'm now
> dealing with
>  the 'stats' scripts, and there's a problem: it appears that stats-bodhi 
>  has never actually been properly licensed. It has no license header or
>  license text, and AFAICS, never has. I can't simply declare it to be
>  F/OSS licensed, as I didn't write it.
>  
>  Can Lukas or Kamil give us a license declaration for this code? Thanks! 
There's one other thing without an explicit license, leftover-tagged-
builds.sh , which was written by Kamil. It's pretty trivial (and maybe
no longer needed), but if you could declare a license that'd be good.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

[Kamil Paral]

>  On Thu, 2016-11-03 at 14:41 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  > I'm back working on moving fedora-qa to Pagure. I'm now dealing with
>  > the 'stats' scripts, and there's a problem: it appears that stats-bodhi
>  > has never actually been properly licensed. It has no license header or
>  > license text, and AFAICS, never has. I can't simply declare it to be
>  > F/OSS licensed, as I didn't write it.
>  > 
>  > Can Lukas or Kamil give us a license declaration for this code? Thanks!
>  
>  There's one other thing without an explicit license, leftover-tagged-
>  builds.sh , which was written by Kamil. It's pretty trivial (and maybe
>  no longer needed), but if you could declare a license that'd be good. 
I think putting GPL2+ on them is a reasonable choice.

The leftover-tagged-builds.sh was I think written during some time that we had a lot of
issues with Bodhi. I'd probably still keep it there, but yes, we haven't needed it
lately.

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 10:12 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
>  > On Thu, 2016-11-03 at 14:41 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  > > I'm back working on moving fedora-qa to Pagure. I'm now dealing with
>  > > the 'stats' scripts, and there's a problem: it appears that
> stats-bodhi
>  > > has never actually been properly licensed. It has no license header or
>  > > license text, and AFAICS, never has. I can't simply declare it to be
>  > > F/OSS licensed, as I didn't write it.
>  > > 
>  > > Can Lukas or Kamil give us a license declaration for this code? Thanks!
>  > 
>  > There's one other thing without an explicit license, leftover-tagged-
>  > builds.sh , which was written by Kamil. It's pretty trivial (and maybe
>  > no longer needed), but if you could declare a license that'd be good.
>  
>  I think putting GPL2+ on them is a reasonable choice. 
Can you be a bit more definitive about stats-bodhi, since AFAICS, it
was initially written by Lukas? I'm not sure the above is quite
definitive enough for code that isn't entirely yours.

>  The leftover-tagged-builds.sh was I think written during some time
>  that we had a lot of issues with Bodhi. I'd probably still keep it
>  there, but yes, we haven't needed it lately. 
You should have commit access to the repo, so can you just stick a
license line in the file for that one? Thanks :)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

[Lukas Brabec]

I'm fine with GPL2+

[Kamil Paral]

>  Can you be a bit more definitive about stats-bodhi, since AFAICS, it
>  was initially written by Lukas? I'm not sure the above is quite
>  definitive enough for code that isn't entirely yours. 
See Lukas' response, pushed.

>  > The leftover-tagged-builds.sh was I think written during some
> time
>  > that we had a lot of issues with Bodhi. I'd probably still keep it
>  > there, but yes, we haven't needed it lately.
>  
>  You should have commit access to the repo, so can you just stick a
>  license line in the file for that one? Thanks :) 
Also pushed.