Re: Question about automatic generation of GPLv3 COPYING file

[Brian Cameron]

Richard:

>     This has caused some confusion for some modules (such as the GNOME
>     gconf-editor, gnome-settings-daemon, gnome-media-apps, and gphoto
>     modules).  These programs are licensed under GPLv2 (or later).  But
>     since these modules didn't have a COPYING file, now they have a GPLv3
>     COPYING file due to this default automake behavior.  So now there is
>     some confusion about whether these modules are really GPLv2 or GPLv3.

Note, we just discovered the gnome-games module also has the same
problem.

> They ought to have a COPYING file.  Why not fix these packages
> to have the COPYING file that is appropriate for them?

Agreed, modules should have a COPYING file.  We are working with the
maintainers to fix the problems.  However, some of the modules are
not very actively maintained, so it is turning into a little bit of a
headache to get this corrected.

Sun has happened to catch issues with GNU modules that are shipped
with Solaris, but I'd imagine there are plenty of additional modules
that have similar issues.

> However, it occurs to me that Automake could warn about the lack
> rather than supply one.  Or it could ask what to do
> in this case.

It does seem that automake could have a nicer way of encouraging or
enforcing users to follow the GNU Coding Standard than by choosing
a particular license for you.  Really, I think we should be encouraging
authors to pick their licenses with reasonable consideration.

Brian