[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: inetutils ChangeLog doc/Makefile.am doc/inetuti...

From: Bruno Haible
Subject: Re: inetutils ChangeLog doc/Makefile.am doc/inetuti...
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 01:02:26 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.9.9

[Trimmed down the CCs]

Simon Josefsson wrote:
> So in gnulib, I propose we deprecated 'fdl' and ask maintainers to
> depend directly on 'fdl-1.3' or whatever version they need.  Thoughts?

I think gnulib supports all possible ways the maintainer prefers:
  - If the maintainer wants always the newest fdl.texi, he uses the
    'fdl' module or takes the 'fdl' module.
  - If the maintainer wants always the newest version of a specific FDL
    version (usually typographical corrections only), he can use
    "gnulib-tool --copy-file doc/fdl-1.x.texi".
  - If the maintainer wants a stable copy of a specific FDL version,
    he can copy and commit it into his project.

If "gnulib-tool --copy-file" gets more used, we can remove the 'fdl'
module entirely.

> the only problem is that the gnulib 'fdl' module is a moving target.

People who don't like the moving target will not use the 'fdl' module.
That's not a reason to change anything in the 'fdl' module.

> Note that gnulib does not contain a 'gpl' or 'lgpl' module, only
> 'gpl-2.0', 'gpl-3.0', and 'lgpl-2.1'.  (Although no lgpl-3.0..)  So it
> seems the 'fdl' module is sub-optimal.

The situation with GPL and LGPL is different: A change in the license of
the code is a very careful decision. Whereas the FDL license version does
not matter for many developers. This explains the difference in module


reply via email to

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