ccan code breaks older build farm systems

[Michael Adam]

Hi Tridge,

tridge at samba.org wrote:
> 
> Hi Volker/Rusty,
> 
> I don't see the question of having copyright headers in each file or
> per directory as being a legal issue, it is mainly a question of
> clarity.

Right, it is a matter of clarity / courtesy / explicitness.

> We actually have a couple of places where we have a
> per-directory license file now, namely the librpc/idl directory and
> the lib/popt directory.
> 
> I see the lib/ccan code as being like the lib/popt and similar
> directories where we have a copy of an externally maintained piece of
> code in our tree. In that case we usually leave whatever conventions
> that external project adopted in place, as long as we know that the
> result is something that is OK legally when used as part of our code.
> 
> That doesn't mean we shouldn't make suggestions to Rusty on clarity
> however. I think a one line "see LICENSE file in this directory for
> license information" in the ccan code would make it a bit clearer, or
> even use the shorthand for the license name, like this:
> 
>  licensed under LGPLv2.1+ - see LICENSE file for details
> 
> It would be up to Rusty if he adopts this suggestion, and I certainly
> wouldn't suggest blocking the use of ccan on this basis.

In the samba code to my understanding, we have the policy of
adding these license/copyright headers.
But originally, I did not realize that the ccan code was to
be considered external / contributed code.

I still think we should create a directory containing external
code so that is is absolutely cleare already from the location of
a file whether it is a genuine samba file or an externally
contributed file.

> Regarding the LGPLv2.x issue that Michael raised, I agree with Simo
> that this is automatic, and we don't need to actually change the
> license on the file. That is what I understand of the "convey code"
> wording on the page that was referenced.

Ok, I simply misunderstood it. I simply was not quite cleare
about the meaning of "to convey", as it seems. Thanks to Simo and
Tridge for explaining it!

Cheers - Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20110718/26d5dd5d/attachment.pgp>