* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 10:05:36PM CET:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> >Should we commit COPYING to cvs to avoid this?
>
> That certainly seems like a wise idea, particulary since there are
> legal implications if someone checks out the files and the COPYING
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
This reminds me, when doing the 1.5.26 release I started with a clean
checkout, automake added COPYING v3, by chance I noticed and copied in v2.
Should we commit COPYING to cvs to avoid this?
That certainly seems like a wise idea, particulary since the
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> But the COPYING file has version 3 in it.
>
This reminds me, when doing the 1.5.26 release I started with a clean
checkout, automake added COPYING v3, by chance I noticed and copied in v2.
Should we commit COPYING to cvs to avoid this?
Peter
--
Peter O'Gorman
http://p
On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 07:21:35PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello Kurt,
>
> * Kurt Roeckx wrote on Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 07:13:00PM CET:
> >
> > It seems most of the files have this in them:
> > # GNU Libtool is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > # it under the terms o
Hello Kurt,
* Kurt Roeckx wrote on Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 07:13:00PM CET:
>
> It seems most of the files have this in them:
> # GNU Libtool is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> # it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> # the Free Software Foundati
Hi,
It seems most of the files have this in them:
# GNU Libtool is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
# the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
# (at your option) any later version.
