[Libosinfo] [RESEND RFC PATCH 2/2] ubuntu: Add jeos install-script (version >= 6.06)

[Fabiano Fidencio]

On Thu, 2013-11-21 at 15:39 -0500, Chris Lalancette wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 02:27:06PM +0100, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
> >> From: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano at fidencio.org>
> >>
> >> script base on: https://github.com/clalancette/oz/tree/master/oz/auto
> >
> > Oz is licensed under the LGPLv2-only, while libosinfo is LGPLv2-or-later
> > so we need to be slightly careful in copying here.
> >
> > I'm unclear how much is your work, vs copied from Oz, but
> > for safety sake I think we should be explicit about the license
> > change here. GIT says the Ubuntu files there have changes from
> > 4 people in Oz history.
> 
> The preseed files look very similar, and since that is most of the
> patch, better to be safe.

Yeah, they are very similar.
Actually, what we want is produce jeos files as much similar as can of
yours.
So, probably it will happen again with another distro scripts.


> >
> >   Author: Chris Lalancette <clalance at redhat.com>
> >   Author: Chris Lalancette <clalancette at gmail.com>
> >   Author: helgi <helgith at gmail.com>
> >   Author: Joseph W. Breu <breu at breu.org>
> >   Author: Steven Dake <sdake at redhat.com>
> >
> > For any of the changes authored under Red Hat copyright, we have
> > unconditional permission to change to LGPLv2+. The 2 changes by
> > Helgi and Joseph Breu are so trivial to be not considered
> > copyrightable material.
> >
> > We should still get an explicit ack from Chris for changes he's
> > made since he left Red Hat though.
> >
> > Chris, can you reply to confirm you're ok with this.
> 
> In any case, yes, it is fine to license these bits under LGPLv2 or later.

Nice, thanks! :-)

Best Regards,
--
Fabiano Fidêncio