Robert Millan wrote: > lib/atanl.c > lib/logl.c If you look into the glibc CVS log of sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128/s_atanl.c and sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128/e_logl.c, you see that the copyright holder (Stephen Moshier) has given permission to license them under LGPL.
> lib/diacrit.c This comes from François Pinard's libit-0.2, which is GPL. > lib/dirfd.h > lib/getpagesize.h coreutils - Jim Meyering. > lib/alloca.c A long-time GNU citizen, distributed as part of many GNU packages. > lib/lbrkprop.h This is an automatically generated file. It's ridiculous to put a copyright license on an automatically generated file if the generating program is available under GPL, since anyone could take that generating program, modify its printf() statements to emit a different license, and run the generating program. > tests/test-stpncpy.c I've put this under GPL now. > The worst problem, however, is in the "m4" and "modules" directories, where > most of the files are unlicensed. For the m4 files, I propose to add the standard notice to them: dnl Copyright (C) YEARS Free Software Foundation, Inc. dnl This file is free software, distributed under the terms of the GNU dnl General Public License. As a special exception to the GNU General dnl Public License, this file may be distributed as part of a program dnl that contains a configuration script generated by Autoconf, under dnl the same distribution terms as the rest of that program. Jim and Paul, is this OK with your gnulib/m4/*.m4 files? About the modules/ files. I wrote most of them. What kind of copyright would you find useful, given that it's only meta-information? > There's also the problem with non-free documentation in "doc" directory (3 > files), but I'm aware that for the FSF freedom isn't important for > documentation so I'm ommiting the list here. Oh right, standards.texi is under GFDL. So this means that Debian will not ship the GNU standards in the next release? Bruno
