[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH] Fix python setup tools license tags

[Simo Sorce]

On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 16:31 +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> On 12/05/2013 04:02 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 15:38 +0100, Petr Vobornik wrote:
> >> On 5.12.2013 15:34, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 15:29 +0100, Petr Vobornik wrote:
> >>>> On 5.12.2013 14:09, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> >>>>> On 12/03/2013 03:26 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >>>>>> Some tags escaped the relicensing we did a long time ago.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Simo.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Looks good, ACK, pushed to:
> >>>>> master: af26e6da4650b3a429af31bc38b546eff27e38c6
> >>>>> ipa-3-3: 9defb913aa65bfe9b423d510f340ae23b9e547f2
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I grepped for some other occurences of "GPLv2":
> >>>>>
> >>>>> contrib/RHEL4/ipa-client.spec:7:License:        GPLv2
> >>>>> do we still want to carry the RHEL4 stuff anyway?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ipa-client/ipa-client.spec.in:7:License:        GPLv2
> >>>>> Is ipa-client.spec used for anything any more?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> install/ui/src/freeipa/package.json:
> >>>>>        "licenses": [{
> >>>>>            "type": "GPLv3",
> >>>>>            "url": "http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html"
> >>>>>        },{
> >>>>>            "type": "GPLv2",
> >>>>>            "url": "http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html"
> >>>>>        }],
> >>>>> Is this package dual-licensed?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It's because of:
> >>>>     git grep "Free Software Foundation; version 2"
> >>>> install/ui/src/freeipa/aci.js: * published by the Free Software
> >>>> Foundation; version 2 only
> >>>> install/ui/test/aci_tests.js: * published by the Free Software
> >>>> Foundation; version 2 only
> >>>> install/ui/test/widget_tests.js: * published by the Free Software
> >>>> Foundation; version 2 only
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It's most likely a mistake and should be changed.
> >>>
> >>> Is that code really v2 only ?
> >>>
> >>> Or are you saying the "version 2 only" strings are mistakes ?
> >>>
> >>> Simo.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's our code. So IMO we should just change it to v3.
> >
> > I do not recall we ever used the v2 only variant, this is highly
> > suspect, we should go through history and make sure it is all our code,
> > then re-license it.
> > If it is derived from v2 only code from an outside party though then we
> > will need to ask for permission to change or strip the code out and
> > rewrite it from scratch.
> >
> > Can someone check through git history and determine where the code comes
> > from and how the "only" label got onto it ?
> 
> There were Red Hat¹ contributors only so far:
> 
> $ for file in 
> install/ui/{src/freeipa/aci.js,test/aci_tests.js,test/widget_tests.js}; 
> do git log --follow --raw $file; done | grep ^Author: | sort | uniq
> Author: Adam Young <ayoung at redhat.com>
> Author: Endi S. Dewata <edewata at redhat.com>
> Author: Endi Sukma Dewata <edewata at redhat.com>
> Author: Martin Kosek <mkosek at redhat.com>
> Author: Petr Vobornik <pvoborni at redhat.com>
> Author: Petr Voborník <pvoborni at redhat.com>
> 
> 
> The files come from these commits, with the "only" label already in them:
> c281e786c805f400ca23d4412e29d396632d5441 widget unit tests
> 07ace112afeaadade0ca372fe23a9432c2c9780f aci ui
> 
> or without tracking renames:
> b9ef6ab0c412913234f05f788b3fcd3c3277eb69 Move of core Web UI files to 
> AMD directory
> b9ad279ad2d8d93dd501115a028783cf8fe7fcbd rename static to ui
> c281e786c805f400ca23d4412e29d396632d5441 widget unit tests


Bringing Adam in the loop as he seem to be the original author.

Adam,
can you shed some light on this license issue ?

Was it just a mistake on your part when you copied in the boiler plate ?
Or was the code derived (and why no attribution if it was ?)

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York