On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 03:40:59PM -0500, Evan Huus wrote:
> Good point - PIDL is already mentioned at the top of COPYING in this way.
I know :-)
> Now the question becomes, are we legally required to list *all*
> additional licenses in COPYING, or only when the license itself
> requires it? There are currently a couple of licenses which we carry
> but aren't listed in COPYING, in addition to GPLv3 (html2text.py) and
> GPLv3+ (PIDL) which is mentioned but not included.
For me it's not really a matter of "legally required" but a matter of
politeness.
So while all the "real" source files require a GPLv2(+) compatible license I
don't
mind adding a paragraph like this:
The following source files contain code not covered by but compatible with the
GNU General Public License version 2:
<list of files>
Ciao
Jörg
--
Joerg Mayer <jma...@loplof.de>
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that
works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
