On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 09:16:08PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 08:52:17PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> > Robert Millan asks:
> > > Did you reach a consensus in how to deal with the lack of license in "m4"
> > > and "modules" directories?
> >
> > Under modules/ I put a cop
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 08:52:17PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Robert Millan asks:
> > Did you reach a consensus in how to deal with the lack of license in "m4"
> > and "modules" directories?
>
> Under modules/ I put a copyright notice.
great!
> For m4/* these is still no consensus: Paul Eggert
Robert Millan asks:
> Did you reach a consensus in how to deal with the lack of license in "m4"
> and "modules" directories?
Under modules/ I put a copyright notice.
For m4/* these is still no consensus: Paul Eggert wants GPL for them, whereas
I favour a "GPL with autoconf-like exception clause"
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 02:57:45PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
>
> I don't want it to give it away in public domain; instead I've added
> the GPL copyright notice to [lbrkprop.h] now.
Thanks! With this and the other commits Paul did, most of my concerns are
solved (all of those that affected the
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But since *.m4 files are often copied from one module to another,
Isn't this much like saying source code is often copied from one *.c
file to another? The FSF can do this, even if the code movement
crosses the LGPL/GPL boundary, since the FSF has the c
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't want it to give it away in public domain; instead I've added
> the GPL copyright notice to it now. Since the module description says
> LGPL, it effectively means the file is under LGPL.
Thanks. That sounds quite reasonable to me. (Like I said,
Paul Eggert wrote:
> The program that generates lbrkprop.h is GPL'ed, but none of this
> GPL'ed code survives in lbrkprop.h. lbrkprop.h merely consists of a
> small wrapper (about 15 lines of simple code, which are unprotectible
> by copyright in my opinion) followed by data which are automaticall
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 09:05:51AM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
> dirfd.h is just dirent boilerplate code plus two trivial #if blocks.
> Not worth worrying about, imho. The guts are in dirfd.m4.
> getpagesize.h was factored out of GPL'd code.
> I've added a copyright notice to each of those.
Loo
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't know how does copyright law apply to auto-generated programs. Maybe
> debian-legal can offer advice on this.
The answer is "it depends", so let me give a few more details about
the file in question, so that debian-legal knows what we're talking
To fix diacrit.h and diacrit.c I installed the obvious patch:
2004-10-06 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* diacrit.c, diacrit.h: Add GPL notice.
Index: diacrit.c
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/gnulib/gnulib/lib/diacrit.c,v
retriev
Paul Eggert wrote:
> > The purpose of the "special exception" clause is so that also non-GPLed
> > packages can use autoconfiguration.
>
> Yes. However, that purpose doesn't apply to GPLed modules, as they
> can't be linked with non-GPLed packages.
But since *.m4 files are often copied from one m
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For these borrowed files from other GNU or free software projects, I think we
> still need an explicit note in the files distributed as part of gnulib.
OK, let's start with atanl.c and logl.c. I see that glibc has fixed
this problem by adding a proper
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:00:25PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> > lib/atanl.c
> > lib/logl.c
>
> If you look into the glibc CVS log of sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128/s_atanl.c
> and sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128/e_logl.c, you see that the copyright holder
> (Stephen Moshier) has gi
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 19:26:48 +0200 Bruno Haible wrote:
> Some m4 files are shared between GPLed and LGPLed packages, and it is
> frequent to copy m4 macros from one file to another (much more
> frequent than copying source code between .c files). For this reason,
> I think it would be best if all *
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some m4 files are shared between GPLed and LGPLed packages,
Yes, and for these files the more-permissive license makes sense.
> and it is frequent to copy m4 macros from one file to another (much
> more frequent than copying source code between .c files
Paul Eggert wrote:
> > For the m4 files, I propose to add the standard notice to them:
> >
> > dnl Copyright (C) YEARS Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> > dnl This file is free software, distributed under the terms of the GNU
> > dnl General Public License. As a special exception to the GNU General
Karl Berry wrote:
> I suggest, based on the advice in maintain.texi:
>
> Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification,
> are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
> notice and this notice are pre
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For the m4 files, I propose to add the standard notice to them:
>
> dnl Copyright (C) YEARS Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> dnl This file is free software, distributed under the terms of the GNU
> dnl General Public License. As a special exception to th
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
...
>> lib/dirfd.h
>> lib/getpagesize.h
>
> coreutils - Jim Meyering.
dirfd.h is just dirent boilerplate code plus two trivial #if blocks.
Not worth worrying about, imho. The guts are in dirfd.m4.
getpagesize.h was factored out of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) writes:
> About the modules/ files. I wrote most of them. What kind of copyright
> would you find useful, given that it's only meta-information?
>
> I suggest, based on the advice in maintain.texi:
>
> Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> Cop
About the modules/ files. I wrote most of them. What kind of copyright
would you find useful, given that it's only meta-information?
I suggest, based on the advice in maintain.texi:
Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Copying and distribution of this file, with or without
Robert Millan wrote:
> lib/atanl.c
> lib/logl.c
If you look into the glibc CVS log of sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128/s_atanl.c
and sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128/e_logl.c, you see that the copyright holder
(Stephen Moshier) has given permission to license them under LGPL.
> lib/diacrit.c
This comes fr
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 03:22:01PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-09-22 14:58:24 +0100 Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[ putting debian-legal on CC ]
>
> For what end?
Because gnulib is ITPed (#272867), we need to sort out possible legal problems
before adding it to Debian, and deb
On 2004-09-22 14:58:24 +0100 Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ putting debian-legal on CC ]
For what end?
There's also the problem with non-free documentation in "doc"
directory (3
files), but I'm aware that for the FSF freedom isn't important for
documentation so I'm ommiting the
[ putting debian-legal on CC ]
Hi!
I'm trying to prepare a Debian package of gnulib, but there seems to be some
legal problems we should sort out first.
According to the COPYING file, we can't assume GPL for any of the files in
the source tree. This is a problem for files that are not explicit
25 matches
Mail list logo
