https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/Copyright.html
which says
The source files always say "GPL", but the real license
specification is in the module description file.
.. which is highly anomalous. I'm not aware of any other project
anywhere which deliberately puts incomplete licensing in the source
files. (Thankfully.)
As I recall, this situation came about to placate projects which were
using gnulib without using gnulib-tool, notably coreutils and others
that Paul E and Jim M were working on. In the years since then, all
those projects (to my knowledge) have started using gnulib-tool.
Even if there is still a gnulib-using project or two not using
gnulib-tool, clarifying the issue of "what's the real copyright" for
once and for all seems much more important to me. Especially for
gnulib, which is otherwise so pedantically careful about everything.
So how about normalizing gnulib to have the actual license in the source
files?
k
