nano-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[Nano-devel] updates, and relicensing questions...


From: David Ramsey
Subject: [Nano-devel] updates, and relicensing questions...
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:00:24 -0500

Significant changes in CVS:

* fixed a bug where replacing e.g. single-byte characters with multibyte
ones could result in openfile->totsize's being miscalculated (after
replacing text, openfile->totsize was always being changed by the number
of bytes instead of the number of multibyte characters)

* fixed the mouse support to properly indicate the difference between a
mouse event that should be ignored and an error getting a mouse event
(which it didn't as long as it returned a bool); compared to this,
adding proper support for the mouse wheel was trivial (ungetting the
equivalent of three arrow keys either way), so I added it too

* simplified and rewrote the strcasestr() equivalents to use the
strncasecmp() equivalents (the new nstrcasestr(), using nstrncasecmp(),
passes all the gnulib tests for strcasestr(), and the logic of each the
reverse versions of strcasestr() works the same way as far as I can
tell)

Before putting current 2.0 branch CVS out as 2.0.7, there are a few
legal issues to work out:

1. GPL version 3 is out, and I'd like to convert nano's license to GPL
3-or-later.  Furthermore, I'd like to assign nano's copyright to the FSF
(note that I haven't contacted them yet, because I'd like feedback on
this), at least all the parts that aren't from other non-FSF sources
(only the tab completion code from BusyBox, now that the strcasestr()
equivalents are rewritten; I don't know about the included syntax
files; any ideas here?).

2. The license on all the documentation (manual/info pages) is as
follows:

This is free documentation, see the latest version of the GNU General
Public License for copying conditions.  There is NO warranty.

Given this, the documentation would seem to be under GPL 3 already,
which I'm not sure is intended.  I'd prefer to keep all of nano under
one license, so this should probably be changed after nano's licensing
is worked out.

Comments?  Thanks in advance.




reply via email to

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