[pacman-dev] License for new contributions?

Allan McRae allan at archlinux.org
Mon Feb 28 04:44:30 EST 2011

On 28/02/11 17:52, edmeister46 at hushmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 13:55:27 -0400 Xavier Chantry
> <chantry.xavier at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 6:42 PM,<edmeister46 at hushmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hello pacman team!
>>> I've been following development for quite some time, and would
>> like
>>> to submit my package signing patches for review.
>> Out of curiosity, what do these patches accomplish exactly ?
> Bindings for openssl implemented in the backend (alpm).

For the base64 decoding?

>>> However, since some of the files are entirely new, they would
>> have
>>> a license header. I would like to know under what license should
>> I
>>> release my work.
>>> I bring this up because during this time I overlooked the
>> inclusion
>>> of the rankmirrors script, which I've now noticed to be GPL v3
>> code.
>>> Should my files be GPL v2 or v3?
>> Why don't you use the same header that all C files in pacman have,
>> which is "gpl v2 or later" ?
> You see, "or later" includes v3. And since I want to keep up to
> date with RMS' licenses, I prefer v3. Because of this, I'd like to
> know if v3 is acceptable before releasing my work. Some of v2 is
> sadly susceptible to loopholes.

I believe that Dan has not accepted a patch before when the license was 
changed to GPL3, even though the majority of the file was rewritten by 
the submitter.  I'm not sure what the policy on new files is, but I 
would not be too hopeful...


More information about the pacman-dev mailing list