Re: [Libguestfs] [PATCH libnbd] golang: Add README.md and LICENCE files

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 3:53 PM Eric Blake <eblake(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:26:55PM +0300, Nir Soffer wrote: > > Add README.md and LICENSE (copy of COPYING.LIB) file to the module > > Typo in the subject line (but LICENSE is correct here in the message > body) I'll fix in v2. > > directory. This helps people consuming this code from the tarball, which > > seems to be the only way to consume now. > > > > Preview in gitlab: > > https://gitlab.com/nirs/libnbd/-/tree/a6f4ff085022ed1e903518f13e0789f0796... > > > > Signed-off-by: Nir Soffer <nsoffer(a)redhat.com&gt; > > --- > > golang/src/libguestfs.org/libnbd/LICENSE | 508 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > Should we use a git symlink, instead of duplicating the file? Based on your next comment we need to modify the new license. > > golang/src/libguestfs.org/libnbd/README.md | 44 ++ > > 2 files changed, 552 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 golang/src/libguestfs.org/libnbd/LICENSE > > create mode 100644 golang/src/libguestfs.org/libnbd/README.md > > > > diff --git a/golang/src/libguestfs.org/libnbd/LICENSE b/golang/src/libguestfs.org/libnbd/LICENSE > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000..c7c3dcf > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/golang/src/libguestfs.org/libnbd/LICENSE > > @@ -0,0 +1,508 @@ > > +This is the general license covering libnbd. The example code (in the > > +examples/ subdirectory) is distributed under a different license, see > > +examples/LICENSE-FOR-EXAMPLES. > > Does the golang directory structure have an examples/ subdirectory, or > is this wording only applicable when reading the file from the top > level? The examples are located at golang/src/examples while this license file is at golang/src/libguestfs.org/libnbd, so this note is not really needed. But the tests (libnbd_*_test.go), are actually GPL. I'll replace the note about the examples with a note about the tests. Do we need LICENSE.tests for this? It seems that licensing is more complicated than needed in this area. Should we re-license the tests to LGPL?