[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: Rob Browning
Subject: Re: Release status 1.6.1 (2002-05-16)
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 23:36:07 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) Emacs/21.2 (i386-debian-linux-gnu)

If I'm understanding Marius' position correctly, his two main
presumptions are currently that:

  (1) People are used to FSF/GNU projects having a file named COPYING,
      and that COPYING contains the GPL.  If people see a file named
      COPYING, they may just presume it contains the GPL, and if they
      look and COPYING doesn't contain the GPL, they'd be confused.

  (2) As a practical matter, if we wanted to change COPYING to contain
      the full Guile licensing terms, including the exception, we'd
      have to edit a whole bunch of files if we wanted everything to
      be "just right" since many (if not all) of the source files
      refer to COPYING with the expection (given the verbage used)
      that COPYING == GPL.

WRT to (1), I'm not super-concerned by it, but I can see Marius'
point.  WRT to (2), I don't mind doing all the work to change the
files if that's the "right thing to do".

So the question is, what *is* the right thing to do?  The FSF
"standards" info pages have a little relevant info, but nothing

   The `README' file should also refer to the file which contains the
   copying conditions.  The GNU GPL, if used, should be in a file
   called `COPYING'.  If the GNU LGPL is used, it should be in a file
   called `COPYING.LIB'.

So I've filed a bug against the GNU standards package.  Let's see what
they say...

Rob Browning
rlb,, and
GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C  64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD

reply via email to

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