Don't talk about the LGPL if the file is licensed under the GPL

Some files claim that the code is licensed under the GPL, but then
suddenly suggest that the user should have a look at the LGPL.
That's of course non-sense, replace it with the correct GPL wording
instead.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <1548255083-8190-1-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu>
Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu>
This commit is contained in:
Thomas Huth 2019-01-23 15:51:23 +01:00 committed by Laurent Vivier
parent 2bbf3a91eb
commit e361a772ff
7 changed files with 27 additions and 31 deletions

View file

@ -15,8 +15,8 @@
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
* GNU General Public License for more details.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
* License along with this library; if not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
* along with this program; if not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>
*/
#ifndef HW_Q35_H