<html><head></head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>On Feb 26, 2012, at 9:28 AM, Gaetan Nadon <<a href="mailto:memsize@videotron.ca">memsize@videotron.ca</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA1<br>
<br>
On 12-02-24 11:49 AM, Chase Douglas wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> Chase Douglas (5):<br>
> Fix linking against X server libs<br>
> Link libxorg-gtest_main against libxorg-gtest<br>
> Add GPLv3 license as COPYING</span><br>
<a href="http://X.Org">X.Org</a> does not (and I think cannot) use the GPLv3 license. The
tarball is published on the <a href="http://X.Org">X.Org</a> site althought not part of a
katamari. I am not the expert on this, so I don't have a definitive
answer. The patch was not reviewed, so it's hard to say if proper
licensing advice was sought.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't ow what the rules are, but the code has always been GPLv3, which is the default license for anything Canonical creates. I merely forgot to add a COPYING file in 0.1.0, and I'm guessing if I hadn't mentioned the license type in the commit message no one would have noticed again :). This probably means we need to be more vigilant when reviewing new projects, or create a better procedure than 1. announce new project, 2. create repo if no one objects, 3. profit?</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>
It looks like Canonical owns the right to the source code. Perhaps
they would agree to using the <a href="http://X.Org">X.Org</a> preferred license that you find
at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.x.org/releases/X11R7.6/doc/xorg-docs/License.html#id2521948">http://www.x.org/releases/X11R7.6/doc/xorg-docs/License.html#id2521948</a>.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I have inquired about this. To be clear, we are not asking for any contributor agreement since our intent is for this to be for the benefit of <a href="http://X.org">X.org</a> and we hope the community finds it useful. I want to set up xserver unit tests and hope they can be integrated upstream, so if this is a barrier we definitely want to resolve it.</div><div><br></div><div>In the meantime, if anyone outside of Canonical does contribute I will ask for written confirmation on this list that the contribution may be relicensed under the <a href="http://X.org">X.org</a> license just to be safe.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> Generate ChangeLog at make dist
time</span><br>
This will fail when building from a tarball. Consider using the
makefile snippet from all other xorg modules. If you don't want to
depend on util-macros, just copy the command in the gtest makefile.
It lookes like a trivial task, but there are many pitfalls. A lot of
effort and testing went into this line of code.<br>
<br>
There are two zero byte ChangeLog and Changelog file in git which
will just create more opportunities for failures.<br>
<br>
I'd be happy to help with the configuration. If you are ok on
depending on util-macros, you will get a lot of things for free. If
not, that's fine too. We can always copy what we need.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm quite happy for any help with the autotools stuff :). I would say I'm an intermediate level user of autotools, good enough to get most things right, but still need to be shown the ropes elsewhere.</div><div><br></div><div>Using xorg's util-macros is fine with me, I just hadn't looked into it.</div><div><br></div><div>I'll follow up on this when I'm back from vacation later this week.</div><div><br></div><div>-- Chase</div></body></html>