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
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
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
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
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
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"
6 matches
Mail list logo
