Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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)
Le dimanche 15 juillet 2007 à 16:59 +0200, Bruno Haible a écrit :
> 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?
For the reasons I mentioned earli
Le lundi 16 juillet 2007 à 09:33 +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere a écrit :
> Le dimanche 15 juillet 2007 à 16:59 +0200, Bruno Haible a écrit :
> > 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+.
Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> Even if we provide a list of modules we use doesn't mean that we're not
> going to need new module tomorrow, or that another library project
> licensed under GPLv2 will need that module.
I believe we can handle this on demand, like we did in the past. gnulib-tool
will
Le lundi 16 juillet 2007 à 11:28 +0200, Bruno Haible a écrit :
> Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> > Even if we provide a list of modules we use doesn't mean that we're not
> > going to need new module tomorrow, or that another library project
> > licensed under GPLv2 will need that module.
>
> I beli
Le lundi 16 juillet 2007 à 10:14 +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere a écrit :
> Le lundi 16 juillet 2007 à 09:33 +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere a écrit :
> > Le dimanche 15 juillet 2007 à 16:59 +0200, Bruno Haible a écrit :
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > There was no objection when I said that: the majority of g
Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> Here is the patch for the above module,
Thanks. I applied it, plus the same on a few dependencies that you missed:
lseek (needed by fseeko) and getdelim (needed by getline).
2007-07-16 Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* modules/lseek (License): Use the syn
Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> don't you think this could be a show stopper to early GnuLib adopters?
No, I don't think so. Projects which have been using already cannot have
missed the long thread here; projects which will adopt it in the future
will see that there is no problem with the first few
@node GNU Lesser General Public License
@appendix GNU Lesser General Public License
@include lgpl-3.0.texi
@heading The GNU General Public License
@include gpl-3.0.texi
COPYING.LESSER could be done the same way, for consistency.
Actually, I woke up this morning and realiz
> I.e., don't forget gfdl.texi. Is that the intention?
>
> Yes. I checked in new versions of all the Texinfo licenses to gnulib:
> fdl.texi gpl-2.0.texi gpl-3.0.texi lgpl-2.1.texi lgpl-3.0.texi.
>
> Let me know if problems ...
The old lgpl.texi was usable in a manual like libc's with:
Hello Bruno,
The patch you suggested worked fine. The make was successful without error and
the executable seems to be working okay.
Many thanks for your help.
Cheers!
--Alex Z.
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Haible [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 7/12/2007 4:46 PM
To: Zimmerman, Al
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I haven't been following whether glibc is
> going to be upgraded to LGPLv3 or not. Will it?
Yes. That has started to happen already; the v2-only files were
updated to say v2-or-later on July 14. The rest of the v3 patch is
kinda large and is still
12 matches
Mail list logo
