Re: License pedantry

[Eric Blake]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

According to Ian Beckwith on 9/17/2009 6:51 AM:
> Hi,
> 
> I've recently adopted the Debian gnulib package.

Our argument has been that gnulib is for developers, and probably should
not be distributed as a package.  Read gnulib-intro.texi for why we think
that snapshots of gnulib are counter-productive.

> Documenting the copyright and licenses of all the files (a tedious but
> (currently) necessary process), I spotted a few extremely minor issues,
> and ran into a few things I'd like clarifying.
> 
> The attached patch:
> 
> * Replaces incorrect FSF addresses with pointers to www.gnu.org/licenses.
>   (picked up by 'licensecheck', in the debian devscripts package).

Thanks for the reminder.  However, gnulib-tool already replaces the
licenses with the correct text (LGPLv2, LGPLv3, GPLv2, or GPLv3) when
copying from gnulib into a project.  We've been intending to mass-update
all gnulib files once we sort out exactly which license should be used in
the repository, even though that may be different than what the end
project ends up using.

> * Removes a stray 'dnl' in the middle of a copyright notice.

Which file?  This should probably be an independent patch.

> * Updates users.txt with pointers to the gnuit home and gitweb pages.

This should likewise be a separate patch.

> 
> modules/COPYING and modules/README both claim to apply to all the
> files in modules/, but have different copyright years and slightly
> different license wording.
> 
> Of the licenses specified in files in modules/:
> 
> When [L]GPL is specified, is that "any version"? "version 3 or later"?

LGPLv2+ - version 2 or later
LGPL - version 3 or later
GPLv2+ - version 2 or later
GPL - version 3 or later

This is documented in gnulib-intro.texi, under the node Copyright.  If
that section is confusing, we welcome improvements.

> The version specified in the actual source files?

The version specified in a source files is ONE of the licenses that the
file can be shipped under; but gnulib-tool can be used to select another
compatible license according to the project's needs.

> 
> Does "unmodifiable license text" correspond to:
>> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
>> of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Yes; this refers to files like the GPL text.

> 
> Does "unlimited" correspond to:
>> This file is free software; the Free Software Foundation
>> gives unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it,
>> with or without modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.

Yes; this refers to files like *.m4.

- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!

Eric Blake             address@hidden
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkqyM6AACgkQ84KuGfSFAYDSgQCfW13lySvrllutXKjcx6Kdgd0o
NysAnRQY0WOqo8wJk0CvqdzVtOuD8vOS
=rfdz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----