[Spice-devel] License in server/red_parse_qxl.h is GPL, not LGPL

[Bruce Rogers]

 >>> On 12/14/2011 at 10:10 AM, "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange at redhat.com> wrote: 
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 09:02:52AM -0700, Bruce Rogers wrote:
>> When trying to submit a spice package to openSUSE,
>> our licensing team noticed that the file server/red_parse_qxl.h
>> is GPL-2.0+. This seems like an oversight, particularly as the
>> corresponding red_parse_qxl.c file right next to the header file
>> has a LGPL-2.1+ license, which was corrected subsequent to its
>> initial submission (see commit id: 
>> 11034dda428865e442dd2c981851500ed96b9a0c)
>> 
>> Could someone confirm if this is a mistake or not.
> 
> Both red_parse_qxl.h & red_parse_qxl.c were introduced in commit
> 11034dda428865e442dd2c981851500ed96b9a0c by Gerd with GPLv2+.
> In commit c29e4f9dd852231f04877ea700f0c3686f4500f3 Hans fixed
> red_parse_qxl.c to have the LGPLv2+ header, but didn't touch
> the .h file.
> 
> It is pretty clear to me that the .h file should have been fixed
> at the same time to have the LGPLv2+ header. In addition simple
> header file declarations like those in red_parse_qxl.h can't
> really be considered to be copyrightable content, so while IANAL,
> the license header in the .h is not really having any significant
> legal influence IMHO.
> 

My thoughts as well, but it's still good to clean things up which are
not the way they are intended.

> Regards,
> Daniel