[unixODBC-dev] unixODBC-GUI-Qt question + 2 patches

Peter Harvey pharvey at peterharvey.org
Mon Dec 19 19:22:56 GMT 2011


Honza,

As far as I am concerned its simply free software so whatever license 
works for Nick and you works for me.

I can do some work on it since you are taking an interest in it - just 
let me know what you need (aside from the two patches you have here). I 
can also add you to the project with write privs. Its all good.

--
Peter


Honza Horak wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> I'm not sure if pharvey at peterharvey.org still works, so re-sending the 
> message to sourceforge address as well.
>
> I'd like you to ask if you could look at the license problem soon, 
> since we really care about legal things and uncertainty about the 
> license (see below) cause us a bit troubles.
>
> Thanks for your time in advance.
>
> Regards,
>
> Honza
>
>
> On 12/15/2011 06:32 PM, Honza Horak wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> even though unixODBC-GUI-Qt hasn't had a formal release yet, we'd like
>> to have it in Fedora, since as soon as we ship unixODBC-2.3.1, users
>> would miss that GUI tools. Thus, we had prepared a package from SVN
>> commit 95 and I'd like to ask for the following:
>>
>> It is not obvious what version of GPL/LGPL the unixODBC-GUI-Qt project
>> is licensed under (the reason why we cannot take it from GPL.txt is
>> described in [1]). I'd like to ask you if you could tell me the version
>> of GPL/LGPL and explicitly specify it in the README file at least,
>> ideally in all source files where the license is mentioned.
>>
>> Then I've prepared two patches, you can apply:
>>
>> The first one is an incorrect FSF address, that is used in sources, see
>> the attachment fsf-address.patch.
>>
>> The second one is a fix, which I had to use to be able to build the
>> package, see the attachment qstring.patch.
>>
>> The last thing is just an idea about a modules libgtrtst.so and
>> libodbcinstQ4.so. Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't seen a reason to use
>> libgtrtst.so as a module. ODBCTest is linked against libgtrtst.so
>> instead, so I'd say there is no need to treat it as a module from my
>> POV. On the other hand libodbcinstQ4.so is definitely used as a module,
>> but what do you think about using "-release" and "-avoid-version"
>> libtool modes for this one?
>>
>> [1]
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version_of_the_GPL.2FLGPL_my_package_is_under.3F 
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Honza
>
>



More information about the unixODBC-dev mailing list