After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 787263 - Relicense coverage.cpp and coverage.h to the same license as the rest of GJS
Relicense coverage.cpp and coverage.h to the same license as the rest of GJS
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: gjs
Classification: Bindings
Component: general
1.49.x
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: gjs-maint
gjs-maint
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2017-09-04 18:57 UTC by Philip Chimento
Modified: 2017-09-12 01:54 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Philip Chimento 2017-09-04 18:57:25 UTC
The coverage files have a GPL license header at the top. This was not intentional, but now that people have contributed code to it as GPL, we must formally relicense it if we want to correct it to the MIT/X11 - LGPL dual licensing that the rest of the project has.

These are the people who have committed code to the affected files (from "git shortlog gjs/coverage.{cpp,h} gjs/coverage-internal.h test/gjs-test-coverage.cpp test/gjs-test-utils.h"):

- [ ] Chun-wei Fan
- [ ] Claudio André
- [x] Cosimo Cecchi
- [ ] Giovanni Campagna
- [x] Jasper St. Pierre
- [ ] Luke Jones
- [x] Philip Chimento
- [x] Sam Spilsbury
- [ ] Shawn Walker / signed off by Alan Coopersmith
- [ ] Tim Lunn

Endless owns the copyright to most of the code in those files. I will double check on Tuesday but since Endless's policy is to license contributions under the same license as the rest of the project, I doubt this will be a problem.

I am assuming Endless does own the copyright to all the code from contributors who work(ed) at Endless (which is not the case for me, but I am fine with relicensing my contributions that I made on personal time as well.)

The remaining contributions don't form a substantial portion of the files, and as per [1] it is likely that express permission from contributors of a few patches is not required to change the license. However, I will send a mail and CC those contributors here in order to allow them to bring up any comments or concerns before making the change.

[1] http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html#id2790762
Comment 1 luke.nukem.jones@gmail.com 2017-09-04 21:05:43 UTC
I'm okay with using the described licenses, and in favour of keeping it consistent across the project.
Comment 2 Fan, Chun-wei 2017-09-06 02:34:10 UTC
Hi Philip,

> I'm okay with using the described licenses, and in favour of keeping it
> consistent across the project.

+1, I second with this, too :)

With blessings, and cheers!
Comment 3 Claudio André 2017-09-06 14:16:46 UTC
Ok, 
Comment 4 Philip Chimento 2017-09-11 18:39:12 UTC
I received an okay from Endless and I also received okays on my personal email account from everyone except Tim, who contributed two lines from commit 31a1e86a8a0f8637e7d9d4a62cd4a6a49814b7e8 to gjs/coverage.cpp. As far as I understand, that isn't an obstacle to going ahead with the relicensing. This will be fixed in GJS 1.50.0, to be released momentarily.
Comment 5 darkxst 2017-09-12 01:54:44 UTC
just for the record, I am fine with the relicensing!