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

[Uwe Brauer]

>>> "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?

Shall I stick to  the name COPYING, or even,  shall I have the file under two
different names?

> Each file also has a copyright notice in the name of the Free Software
> Foundation.

>> So to sum it up, I will make sure that all files are under GPLv3+,
>> give the Debian person my ok, and then hopefully get all the signatures
>> needed, to put in ELPA.

> Thank you for doing this job.

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


-- 
Warning: Content may be disturbing to some audiences
I strongly condemn Putin's war of aggression against the Ukraine.
I support to deliver weapons to Ukraine's military. 
I support the NATO membership of the Ukraine.
I support the EU membership of the Ukraine. 
https://addons.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/addon/gmail-conversation-view/

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature