groff
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Groff] Trying to understand groff development and release model


From: Halim Issa
Subject: Re: [Groff] Trying to understand groff development and release model
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:09:04 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.10.3 (Linux/2.6.27.7; KDE/4.1.3; i686; ; )

On Friday 26 December 2008 19:59:55 Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > Basically what is needed is to upgrade all the source headers from
> > GPL2 to the following text:
> >
> >     This file is part of groff.
> >
> >     groff is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> >     under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published
> >     by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the
> >     License, or (at your option) any later version.
> >
> >     groff is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
> >     WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> >     MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> >     GNU General Public License for more details.
> >
> >     You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public
> >     License along with groff.  If not, see
> >     <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>
> Yes, I think so.  Further guidance can be found here:
>
>   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
>
> Note that the postal address of the FSF, the copyright holder of
> groff, has changed too, IIRC.
>
> > So basically I need to rip out the GPL2 part and puts this one in
> > place in each and every source file, and then just include the basic
> > LICENSE and COPYING files from gplv3?
>
> Yes, all files which have a GPL text should be updated.  Some files
> have a more permissive license (see file LICENSES) and should be not
> changed.  It's probably easiest if you don't add new copyright
> notices, just replacing existing v2 notices with the v3 text.
>
> > Shouldn't all prior contributors to groff also approve before their
> > code is relicensed, or is this handled by the existing sentence
> > saying "GPLv2 or later" in current source code?
>
> This is not necessary since all contributors have assigned the
> copyright to the FSF, and the FSF wants all GNU projects be updated.
>
> > I downloaded the -current tarball and will base my changes on that
> > one. How would you prefer me to submit those changes?
>
> Please use
>
>   diff -aru <olddir> <newdir>

OK - Please see attached as a first attempt


Attachment: groff-license-update-file.bz2
Description: application/bzip


reply via email to

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