Brett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The confusion comes up because the headers in the individual files > say something else: they say it's GPLed, period. Given this > discrepancy, which source of information should users believe?
They should believe the license information on the files that they have. If it says GPL, then it's GPL. If it says it's LGPL, then it's LGPL. The retrieval method for getting files from gnulib generates files that use either wording, so it's up to the guy who retrieves the files to get it right. > I don't think that's clear to newbies. No matter _what_ we do, it won't be clear to newbies. The GPL/LGPL licensing rules are complicated. Newbies cannot understand them at a glance. > That doesn't create any serious trouble for anybody Yes, and that's the point. We have a situation where there is a real hassle for developers dealing with these files, which can cause real trouble during development. We need to trade this off with the confusion by people who get files from gnulib with licenses that are more restrictive than they want. > I'm starting to think I misunderstood the situation, and some > projects are still using gnulib files directly without gnulib-tool. There is always cut-and-paste. People will always do that, regardless of gnulib-tool. > Perhaps the best thing would be > to simply add an informational notice to the headers of LGPLed files; > something like: > > This file may be available under other licenses, such as the GNU LGPL. > See the gnulib documentation for details. That sort of thing sounds reasonable, but it has to be a proper notice, and not be so handwavy. How about this wording instead? This file contains 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. Alternatively, you can redistribute this file's contents and/or modify the contents under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. This file's contents are 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 and the GNU Lesser General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License or the GNU Lesser General Public License along with this file. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. This wording would appear in the master copy, and in all copies distributed in GPL or LGPL packages, without any changes. This will simplify gnulib-tool and will simplify the process of generating and applying patches. A downside of this wording is that it will publicize the existence of the LGPL even in GPL-only packages. So the proposal would have to run by RMS. That is why I changed the phrase "This program" to "This file's contents" in the proposed wording above -- to emphasize the fact that the permissions notice applies only to this particular source code file, and not to the whole package in which it appears.
