Hi Stefan,
On 26.01.2018 23:43, Stefan Tauner wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 18:51:46 +0100 Nico Huber nico.h@gmx.de wrote:
Hi folks,
I've just noticed that most of flashrom is licensed under GPLv2 + any later version, while about a third of the code base is GPLv2 only. I wonder if that is intentional, or if any of the license headers was just copy pasted and spread too much?
Hi,
using GPLv2 code in a GPLv2+ project is perfectly fine: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#compat-matrix-footnote-2
of course. But given that people ask from time to time about libflashrom GPLv2 might not be the only license involved.
Not sure about the "spread factor" but there are certainly *some* parts that are GPLv2 so there is not much incentive to look further IMHO...
Not to completely unify the licensing, no. But flashrom is rather flexible concerning what is build into the binary. So we could still strive to make it GPLv2+ in its core or something.
Also, I am wondering if I should encourage contributors that add new files to make it GPLv2+ or not.
Nico