Re: gplv3 files and updates

[Brett Smith]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 12:45:03AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> 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.

Understood.  Thanks for clearing that up for me.

> 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.

Right.  I'll go ahead and take that to RMS, then, so we can hammer out
something final.  Should I keep bug-gnulib CC:ed on that thread?  If not,
does anybody in particular want to be in the loop for it?  Or if you all
would prefer, I can just send the final text back to this list once the
dust settles.

Thanks,

-- 
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation