[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: is GPL2 or later enough for having a package in ELPA?

From: Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide
Subject: Re: is GPL2 or later enough for having a package in ELPA?
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 09:21:06 +0200
User-agent: mu4e 1.10.3; emacs 29.0.90

Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> writes:

>>>> "RS" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
>> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
>> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>>> Ok thanks for this clarification. So to sum it up, the safest practise
>>> is to have a LICENSE file *and* a LICENSE header in each source file?
>> I am not sure what that means.  What would you put in the LICENSE file?
>> (When you say "a LICENSE header", I think you mean a license notice.)
>> Normally we have a file COPYING which contains only a copy of the GNU
>> GPL version 3, and each file has a license notice.
> That is what I was referring to. The Debian person who contacted me,
> asked me whether it would be possible to have a LICENSE file in the
> package. So I simply thought of using the content of the COPYING file
> and call it LICENSE. Is this a problem?

That’s not a problem, no.

> My pleasure, anything that makes emacs more popular is worth the effort.


Best wishes,
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein,
ohne es zu merken.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]