keisuke.mori+ha at gmail
Dec 25, 2012, 9:44 PM
Post #3 of 3
2012/12/24 Dejan Muhamedagic <dejan [at] suse>:
> Hi Keisuke-san,
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 02:14:10PM +0900, Keisuke MORI wrote:
>> The resource-agents package is licensed under GPL and LGPL,
>> but the full copy of LGPL license file is missing
>> as opposed to the heartbeat and the glue packages that includes it.
>> Why don't we include COPYING.LGPL in the agents package too
>> as the verbatim copy of LGPL license for the consistency?
> Not really an expert in the area, but I think there's no problem
> adding a copy of a license.
Thanks for your comment. I will submit a pull request for that.
There is no problem with the current package at all, but adding it
would be good to clarify which licenses we are using more precisely.
The background is that our legal division advised that there was a
'bogus' OSS project which claims as if they are using a popular OSS
license defined by OSI but actually they derived it with some
additional clauses and limitations for their benefits. Including a
verbatim copy of a license file will help for clarifying that we are a
valid OSS project.
Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev [at] lists
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/