[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RFC] all-permissive license uses

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: [RFC] all-permissive license uses
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 22:28:03 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

Hi Eric,

* Eric Blake wrote on Mon, May 04, 2009 at 05:50:02PM CEST:
> The GNU Maintainer standards were recently updated to revamp the
> wording of the recommended all-permissive license.

> Any comments on this patch, 
> particularly if there are any files listed below that I should keep under a 
> different license than all-permissive?

Whatever changes I was responsible for in these files, I don't mind at
all if you put them under an all-permissive license.  Can't speak for
other developers, though.

For files containing personal data (and yes, a name and an email address
_is_ personal data) as in AUTHORS and THANKS, I always have an awkward
feeling when these have even so much as any kind of FLOSS copyright
statement on them.  But that may be just me.  Put around another way
though, who would you be helping with an all-permissive statement on
these files *except* maybe for spammers and other questionable uses?

* Eric Blake wrote on Mon, May 04, 2009 at 07:09:55PM CEST:
> Barring comments to the contrary, I'm also going to squash this in, to 
> likewise 
> impact INSTALL.

Sure, why not.

> The only remaining files that have the phrase 'unlimited permissions' are the 
> sources that build configure, config.status, and testsuite.  For example, 
> _AC_INIT_COPYRIGHT dumps this into each configure script:
> [This configure script is free software; the Free Software Foundation
> gives unlimited permission to copy, distribute and modify it.],
> But I'm thinking that the current discussion regarding the GPLv3 exception 
> should probably factor in to whether I reword those sentences.

Yes, I agree.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]