Follow-up Comment #31, task #16584 (group administration):
> > > What license this paragraph refers to?
> > This paragraph refers to the GPL license. Since LGPL is an additional text
to
> > the GPL license, the LGPL license doesn't really link to any topic of
> > including a copy of LGPL.
> I'm not sure I understand the bottom line. Have you succeeded to
> confirm with the text of the licenses that including the LGPL
> in a distribution is a requirement?
Yes I confirm including the LGPL in a distribution is a requirement in some
certain circumstances. For example, in the LGPL license, section 3. Object
Code Incorporating Material from Library Header Files. There is written b)
Accompany the object code with a copy of the GNU GPL and this license
document.
> In fact, this isn't a notice. The first line denotes a short
> description of the program, the second line is a template
> for the copyright notice; the rest is the license notice.
> Those are the two kinds of notices we are speaking about.
> Now, the next question is, what files should include them. What
> do you think?
To consider about my experiences to write and read free software libraries, I
think those files which need to be declared copyright should include them.
I have read GLib and glibc the text appears at the top of every C header and
source files.
So, I also add these text at the head of each headers and sources of
StoneValley project. Please see (file #56448).
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16584>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.nongnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
