[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Release status 1.6.1 (2002-05-16)

From: rm
Subject: Re: Release status 1.6.1 (2002-05-16)
Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 18:59:39 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.24i

On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 05:01:08PM +0100, Neil Jerram wrote:
> >>>>> "Rob" == Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:
>     Rob> Anyway, not a big deal either way -- since the README mentions the
>     Rob> exception, I guess most people are likely to read that even before
>     Rob> checking COPYING.  I'm now OK with closing this bug if you like.
> Just an idea: we could leave COPYING as is, and add COPYING-GUILE to
> explain the exception and refer to COPYING.  Then most people going to
> look for COPYING would notice COPYING-GUILE as well.  The text for
> COPYING-GUILE can be the same as what is currently in README.

Hmm, just in my own experience, COPYING is _the_ file i look at to
determine the licence of the software. If i find the GPL i would assume
that the whole software _is_ GLPed (which GUILE is not). If putting Guile's
license under the name COPYING feels strange, why not just name it LICENCE
and name the GPL 'GPL-LICENCE'? Just naming the GPL copying out of tradition
even so it's not the legal copying restriction sounds rather odd to me - i think
the whole licence/copyright issue is messy enough, let's try to keep thinks as
'waterproof' as possible (refering to the text of the README file to establish
a legaly binding licence agreement sounds rather risky :-)

   Ralf Mattes
>         Neil
> _______________________________________________
> Guile-devel mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

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