Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If the upstream uses gettextize instead of glib_gettextize, you see > this notice: > > # This file can be copied and used freely without restrictions. It can > # be used in projects which are not available under the GNU General Public > # License but which still want to provide support for the GNU gettext > # functionality. > # Please note that the actual code of GNU gettext is covered by the GNU > # General Public License and is *not* in the public domain. > > This is clearer than the glib_gettextize version.
Well, I'm not disagreeing with what was clearly upstream's *intent*, but that notice by itself does not grant any permission to modify that file. You're assuming that it's covered by the GPL, and I expect upstream is assuming that too, but the notice doesn't actually *say* that. I think it's buggy wording rather than a problematic license, but the wording is buggy. I expect upstream really intends something more like the license Automake uses. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
