[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Bug-gnulib] Re: Dummy module under LGPL?
From: |
Simon Josefsson |
Subject: |
[Bug-gnulib] Re: Dummy module under LGPL? |
Date: |
Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:39:29 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:
> Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> The gnulib-tool support for --lgpl is finished. While testing it, I
>> noticed that dummy.c used LGPL version 2. This patch upgrade it to
>> LGPL 2.1. At least progreloc.c has the same problem. Using GPL would
>> be fine as well.
>
> Let's make it GPL, for consistency with the other modules.
Fine.
>> I think Bruno actually hold the copyright on the one line of real
>> code in dummy.c
>
> (Naah, that line in the public domain. I've seen that line for at
> least 20 years. Only the comments are copyrightable, really. :-)
>
> But more seriously, we can change it to GPL without any licensing issues,
> since one can always convert GPL->LGPL. We can also have gnulib-tool
> convert it to LGPL 2.1, for the same reason. We don't need the
> author's permission, even assuming
The problem here was really that the fragile license changing code in
gnulib-tool would change "version 2" into "version 2.1" on that file,
so it would say "Library GPL version 2", which is just wrong. The
gnulib-tool patch I sent later look for version 2[ ,} instead, so the
dummy.c patch really isn't necessary.
> Still more seriously: why is that dummy.c "Copyright (C) 2004 Simon
> Josefsson"? It should be copyright by the FSF. There are a few
> gnulib modules that are not copyright FSF, but we don't want to add to
> the list unless there's a very good reason (and we'll probably need
> official FSF approval for each one).
Just an oversight, please change it.
Thanks,
Simon