Re: second call: please nail down the license terms of some more modules

Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi all, > > There was no objection when I said that: the majority of gnulib modules will > migrate from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ and from LGPLv2+ to LGPLv3+. So I assume we can > go for it in a few days? > > Before that, please mark the modules that you want to s

Re: second call: please nail down the license terms of some more modules

Hi Bruno, * Bruno Haible wrote on Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 12:04:36AM CEST: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > libltdl uses the argz module. I assume this is what I should apply then? > > Yes, please. Applied. Thanks! Ralf

Re: licenses.texi and sectioning commands

Someone just tell me. Well, Roland, I'm sorry I didn't anticipate it. I had actually thought of it at one point with respect to the plain text files (COPYING.LESSER has the same issue), but simply dropped that ball. Anyway, my immediate reaction is that there should be one node, it shoul

Re: gplv3 files and updates

Jim Meyering wrote: > consider what it means: > You prepare everything for a release, test to your heart's content, > and then at release time you rerun gnulib-tool to update copyright > notices. Unfortunately, that might also pull in other (untested) > changes. Of course, we can control that, bu

Re: second call: please nail down the license terms of some more modules

Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > libltdl uses the argz module. I assume this is what I should apply then? Yes, please. Bruno

Re: second call: please nail down the license terms of some more modules

Hello, * Bruno Haible wrote on Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 04:59:02PM CEST: > > There was no objection when I said that: the majority of gnulib modules will > migrate from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ and from LGPLv2+ to LGPLv3+. So I assume we can > go for it in a few days? > > Before that, please mark the module

Re: gplv3 files and updates

Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Paul, > >> If this sort of bootstrap were changed to make copies rather than >> symbolic links, it would be much more of a pain to develop when >> changes to both gnulib and an application are being debugged. It >> would be far too easy to mistakenly e

Re: gplv3 files and updates

Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric Blake wrote: >> Would it still be possible to keep symlink development (yes, that means >> during development, the linked files bear a looser license than necessary, >> but only on the developer's machine), so long as a maintainer-check >> guarantees

Re: second call: please nail down the license terms of some more modules

Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There was no objection when I said that: the majority of gnulib modules will > migrate from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ and from LGPLv2+ to LGPLv3+. So I assume we can > go for it in a few days? No objection here. On a related note, I've already don that for everythi

second call: please nail down the license terms of some more modules

Hi all, There was no objection when I said that: the majority of gnulib modules will migrate from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ and from LGPLv2+ to LGPLv3+. So I assume we can go for it in a few days? Before that, please mark the modules that you want to stay at the current license. We can also revert a licen

Re: Utility script for gnulib

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Hello, > > GNU findutils has a shell script that automatically checks out a given > list of gnulib modules from CVS. You might want to include this or > link to it to avoid duplication of this work. > > The script is called "import-gnulib.sh" and its configuration

Utility script for gnulib

Hello, GNU findutils has a shell script that automatically checks out a given list of gnulib modules from CVS. You might want to include this or link to it to avoid duplication of this work. The script is called "import-gnulib.sh" and its configuration file is named "import-gnulib.config".