Re: gplv3 files and updates

[Paul Eggert]

Brett Smith <address@hidden> writes:

> simply put the standard LGPL license header notice on the files that
> are LGPLed, and give gnulib-tool a --gpl switch to convert the
> files' headers to a GPL license notice on request.

That won't work well, because it's common for developers to use
symbolic links to gnulib source files, not munged copies of the source
files.  Munged copies are inconvenient, because one can easily edit
the munged copy by mistake while fixing a bug, and then one has edited
the wrong copy of the file.  It's much nicer to have just one copy of
the file.

Several packages' bootstrap scripts work this way.  They invoke
gnulib-tool, but they arrange for symlinks instead of copies.  Most
(all?) of these packages use the GPL, so it's more convenient if the
gnulib source files in question say "GPL".


Brett Smith <address@hidden> writes:

> I'm primarily concerned with consistency, so that when people look
> at the gnulib source (as it exists in its own git repository, not
> consumer projects), it's unambiguously clear to developers that they
> can use the code under the LGPL.

The proposed permissions wording in
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2007-10/msg00225.html>
attempts to do that.  The idea is to distribute just one version of
the source code file, not N different versions depending on license
(which is a pain for maintainers, due to version-management issues).
Also, this should make it clearer to all recipients of a source code
file exactly what licenses the file can be distributed under.