On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 01:43:50PM +0100, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
Hey,
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:00:22PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 02:13:18PM +0100, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
diff --git a/tests/test-gconfig.c b/tests/test-gconfig.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bc9aac0 --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/test-gconfig.c @@ -0,0 +1,674 @@ +/* + * test-gconfig.c: unit tests for libvirt-gconfig + * + * Copyright (C) 2014 Red Hat, Inc. + * + * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a + * copy of this software and associated documentation files (the + * "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including + * without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, + * distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to + * permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to + * the following conditions: + * + * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included + * in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. + * + * The Software is provided "as is", without warranty of any kind, express + * or implied, including but not limited to the warranties of + * merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and noninfringement. + * In no event shall the authors or copyright holders be liable for any + * claim, damages or other liability, whether in an action of contract, + * tort or otherwise, arising from, out of or in connection with the + * software or the use or other dealings in the Software. + * + * Author: Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@redhat.com> + */
This license header looks wrong - we're LGPLv2+ licensed
Yes, I've done this on purpose. I prefer code which could be used as sample code for using the library to have a very permissive licence. I can change it to LGPLv2+ if you prefer to have everything under the same licence.
Yes, I'd rather prefer it to be LGPLv2+ licensed because IME it is not uncommon to copy code from the library into the test suite and vica-verca. So you want a consistent license that allows this bi-directional copying IMHO rather than only allowing copying in one direction due to mixed licenses. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|