Fix license for valgrind

Fix license for valgrind
    
Make the LICENSE file more explicit about the fact that the headers used by Chromium use a BSD license.

BUG=138921
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=150082

[Timur Iskhodzhanov, 2012-08-02 08:00:55]

Please don't change the LICENSE file if possible as it's the way the license is
written upstream.

[Timur Iskhodzhanov, 2012-08-02 08:01:18]

the README.chromium part - LGTM

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-08-02 20:33:36]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/steveblock@chromium.org/10843032/4001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-08-02 20:33:39]

Presubmit check for 10843032-4001 failed and returned exit status 1.

Running presubmit commit checks ...

** Presubmit ERRORS **
Missing LGTM from an OWNER for files in these directories:
    base

[Steve Block, 2012-08-02 20:40:52]

Thanks Alexander

> Please don't change the LICENSE file if possible as it's
> the way the license is written upstream.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Upstream, there's no LICENSE file, only a
COPYING file, which isn't present in Chromium. The COPYING file contains only
the GPL v2 license and doesn't mention the BSD-licensed headers. It looks like
the text in our LICENSE file comes from valgrind.h. Given that we have two
headers (valgrind.h and memcheck.h) with similar license descriptions, it seems
odd that our LICENSE file mentions only one of them.

In any case, I've updated the patch to modify README.chromium only. We can
change the LICENSE file later if required.

+brettw for base/ OWNERS

[Alexander Potapenko, 2012-08-03 08:23:41]

On 2012/08/02 20:40:52, Steve Block wrote:
> Thanks Alexander
s/Alexander/Timur

The LICENSE file isn't present upstream, and since it does not belong to the
Valgrind project and is not the valgrind.h file, the suggested changes are
correct.
Both patch sets LGTM

[the_wrong_timurrrr_2, 2012-08-03 08:45:37]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:40 AM,  <steveblock@chromium.org> wrote:
>> Please don't change the LICENSE file if possible as it's
>> the way the license is written upstream.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. Upstream, there's no LICENSE file, only
> a COPYING file, which isn't present in Chromium. The COPYING file contains
> only the GPL v2 license and doesn't mention the BSD-licensed headers.
Yes

> It looks like the text in our LICENSE file comes from valgrind.h.
Yes, at the time LICENSE was added we didn't use memcheck.h yet
http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/base/third_party/valgrind/LIC...
http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/base/third_party/valgrind/mem...

> Given that we have two headers (valgrind.h and memcheck.h) with similar
> license descriptions, it seems odd that our LICENSE file mentions only
> one of them.
Maybe we should then mention both valgrind.h and memcheck.h in the
LICENSE file header rather than removing the header?
Or maybe there's some other reason to remove the LICENSE file header?

[Steve Block, 2012-08-03 09:14:48]

> s/Alexander/Timur
Oops, sorry

> Maybe we should then mention both valgrind.h and memcheck.h in the
> LICENSE file header rather than removing the header?
Done. There's no reason to remove the header, other than making things more
clear.

[Timur Iskhodzhanov, 2012-08-03 09:33:08]

One nit, otherwise LGTM

http://codereview.chromium.org/10843032/diff/7002/base/third_party/valgrind/L...
File base/third_party/valgrind/LICENSE (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10843032/diff/7002/base/third_party/valgrind/L...
base/third_party/valgrind/LICENSE:1: Notice that the following BSD-style license
applies to the Valgrind source
s/source/header

[Steve Block, 2012-08-03 10:11:46]

http://codereview.chromium.org/10843032/diff/7002/base/third_party/valgrind/L...
File base/third_party/valgrind/LICENSE (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10843032/diff/7002/base/third_party/valgrind/L...
base/third_party/valgrind/LICENSE:1: Notice that the following BSD-style license
applies to the Valgrind source
On 2012/08/03 09:33:08, Timur Iskhodzhanov wrote:
> s/source/header

Done.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-08-03 16:16:28]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/steveblock@chromium.org/10843032/10001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-08-03 16:16:40]

Presubmit check for 10843032-10001 failed and returned exit status 1.

Running presubmit commit checks ...

** Presubmit ERRORS **
Missing LGTM from an OWNER for files in these directories:
    base

Presubmit checks took 6.9s to calculate.

Was the presubmit check useful? Please send feedback & hate mail to
maruel@chromium.org!

[brettw, 2012-08-03 18:20:22]

rubberstamp LGTM

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-08-06 09:29:52]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/steveblock@chromium.org/10843032/10001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-08-06 09:53:58]

Try job failure for 10843032-10001 (retry) on win for step "compile" (clobber
build).
It's a second try, previously, step "compile" failed.
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=win&number...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-08-06 10:17:55]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/steveblock@chromium.org/10843032/10001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-08-06 10:35:07]

Try job failure for 10843032-10001 (retry) on win_rel for step "compile"
(clobber build).
It's a second try, previously, step "compile" failed.
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=win_rel&nu...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-08-06 10:36:17]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/steveblock@chromium.org/10843032/10001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-08-06 10:56:05]

Try job failure for 10843032-10001 (retry) on win_rel for step "compile"
(clobber build).
It's a second try, previously, step "compile" failed.
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=win_rel&nu...