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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
