Volker Borchert <[email protected]> writes: > In message <[email protected]> you write: > > |> Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> writes: > |> > |> > Hi! I'm using rename/unlink (the former depends on same-inode) in a > |> > LGPLv2+ library and noticed they are marked as 'LGPL' in gnulib. > |> > According to comments in files or git logs you have written parts of > |> > these files. Would you consider relicensing these under the LGPLv2+? > |> > The files same-inode.h and unlink.c looks relatively trivial, although > |> > rename.c looks a bit more complicated. > |> > |> I got OK from everyone except Volker (which I'm now CC'ing with a > |> possibly better address), > > This seems to indicate you are referring to changes and suggestions > I made using [email protected] almost ten years ago. That adress became > invalid in 2003, sorry.
Yes the small function I'm talking about is something you wrote in 2001. > |> however as Jim noted off-list the old > |> coreutils version control logs indicate that the contribution from > |> Volker was small and no copyright papers were deemed necessary at the > |> time. I also noticed the code changed license before as well. So I'm > |> pushing the patch below. > > Don't worry, be happy. I am not a lawyer, especially not a U.S. one, > so I won't put in writing any statements about licensing and copyright > issues. But - had I been keen on copyright paperwork, I'd have stated > that a that time, and had I been worried about copyright paperwork, > I'd probably never have submitted the stuff. Thanks -- the contribution seems small enough to not require paperwork. (I'm cc'ing the bug-gnulib list to archive for historical purposes that we actually got hold of you.) /Simon
