Where were the conclusions of the discussions with RMS on this topic
made public?
I am not aware of any conclusions being reached. Obviously I
misremembered. Sorry for the noise.
Karl Berry wrote:
> Yes. But it's an important convenience; without it, some people could not
> work efficiently with gnulib.
>
> My recollection is that after discussions with rms and Brett, we
> previously concluded that it would be better all around for the notices
> in the files to ref
> Is it just out of convenience that license headers are always kept
> GPLv3+?
Yes. But it's an important convenience; without it, some people could not
work efficiently with gnulib.
My recollection is that after discussions with rms and Brett, we
previously concluded that it woul
Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Is it just out of convenience that license headers are always kept
> GPLv3+?
Yes. But it's an important convenience; without it, some people could not
work efficiently with gnulib.
Bruno
Hello,
Bruno Haible writes:
> Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> The `verify' module appears as LGPLv2+-licensed but says
>> GPLv3+.
>
> This is normal. See the README, section "License", or the manual [1].
Thanks for the clarification.
Is it just out of convenience that license headers are always kep
Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> The `verify' module appears as LGPLv2+-licensed but says
> GPLv3+.
This is normal. See the README, section "License", or the manual [1].
Bruno
[1] http://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/Copyright.htmt
Hello,
The `verify' module appears as LGPLv2+-licensed but says
GPLv3+. Commit b6f8b81b changed the license from LGPL to LGPLv2+, so I
suppose it's the header that's incorrect. Am I right?
Thanks,
Ludo'.
