[Libguestfs] [PATCH libnbd] golang: Add README.md and LICENCE files

[Nir Soffer]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 3:53 PM Eric Blake <eblake at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:26:55PM +0300, Nir Soffer wrote:
> > Add README.md and LICENSE (copy of COPYING.LIB) file to the module
>
> Typo in the subject line (but LICENSE is correct here in the message
> body)

I'll fix in v2.

> > directory. This helps people consuming this code from the tarball, which
> > seems to be the only way to consume now.
> >
> > Preview in gitlab:
> > https://gitlab.com/nirs/libnbd/-/tree/a6f4ff085022ed1e903518f13e0789f0796733d6
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nir Soffer <nsoffer at redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  golang/src/libguestfs.org/libnbd/LICENSE   | 508 +++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Should we use a git symlink, instead of duplicating the file?

Based on your next comment we need to modify the new license.

> >  golang/src/libguestfs.org/libnbd/README.md |  44 ++
> >  2 files changed, 552 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 golang/src/libguestfs.org/libnbd/LICENSE
> >  create mode 100644 golang/src/libguestfs.org/libnbd/README.md
> >
> > diff --git a/golang/src/libguestfs.org/libnbd/LICENSE b/golang/src/libguestfs.org/libnbd/LICENSE
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..c7c3dcf
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/golang/src/libguestfs.org/libnbd/LICENSE
> > @@ -0,0 +1,508 @@
> > +This is the general license covering libnbd.  The example code (in the
> > +examples/ subdirectory) is distributed under a different license, see
> > +examples/LICENSE-FOR-EXAMPLES.
>
> Does the golang directory structure have an examples/ subdirectory, or
> is this wording only applicable when reading the file from the top
> level?

The examples are located at golang/src/examples while this license file
is at golang/src/libguestfs.org/libnbd, so this note is not really needed.

But the tests (libnbd_*_test.go), are actually GPL. I'll replace the
note about the
examples with a note about the tests.

Do we need LICENSE.tests for this? It seems that licensing is more complicated
than needed in this area. Should we re-license the tests to LGPL?

Nir