svn commit: samba r17512 - in
mkhl at samba.org
Sun Aug 13 11:41:43 GMT 2006
On 8/13/06, simo <idra at samba.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 15:56 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 00:22 +0000, mkhl at samba.org wrote:
> > > Author: mkhl
> > > Date: 2006-08-13 00:22:52 +0000 (Sun, 13 Aug 2006)
> > > New Revision: 17512
> > >
> > > WebSVN: http://websvn.samba.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi?view=rev&root=samba&rev=17512
> > >
> > > Log:
> > > Bring the copyleft header in line with mainline and the other modules.
> > Did you receive permission from the other authors to LGPL this module?
> > I would personally prefer this module remained GPL.
> I agree with Andrew.
> Usually modules under dsdb/samdb/ldb_modules are under the GNU GPL, not
> the LGPL, please revert this change.
Okay, I screwed up. Now to document the ways in which I did...
The code I started with was LGPL licensed, but I inadvertently changed
that in r16505:
My recollection is that I copied the module header from the partition
module, mainly because of the different postal address of the FSF,
which I assumed to be more current. (Mistake #1: Not checking that
The change in license (LGPL to GPL) somehow escaped me then (#2: Not
reading the produced diffs carefully), and I committed the change.
(#3: Not committing different changes as different revisions.)
I noticed the change while producing patches against ldb mainline
(where ldb_map.c is still LGPLed) and decided to revert it because a)
the change was a mistake and b) I thought I would have needed
permission to change the license to GPL in the first place. (#4: Not
properly documenting my change. #5: Not discussing a change in an
area I have little expertise in first.)
I have reverted the reverting change now (i.e. the module is GPLed
now), and have been told that the LGPL may be upgraded to GPL without
asking permisson first.
More information about the samba-technical