Follow-up Comment #42, task #16584 (group administration): On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 08:34:06AM -0400, John Cage wrote: > Follow-up Comment #41, task #16584 (group administration): > > > > I'm afraid this still sounds confusing to me. We have discussed that > > the copyright holders were not bound by the licenses they apply to > > their programs. Don't you remember that? > > Yes, I remember. The license can not restrict what the copyright holders > choose to do.
Very well.
> However, as a man who wants to convey library to others under
> LGPL license, I may use the license as a guide to add or remove a copy of
the
> license itself.
I don't think I understand what 'use the license as a guide' means.
> Though it is not compulsory to bind license with the project,
> I choose to add both GPL and LGPL with StoneValley project.
What could be the implications for the redistributors in these two cases,
* when the tarball comes with a copy of the LGPL, and
* when the tarball comes without a copy of the LGPL?
> > Then I wonder how you listed the files to check in your tarball,
> > and how you checked them.
>
> I follow this guide:
...
> > You sent me the link mentioned these following 2 types of copyrightable
> > files:
...
Good; but I'd like to know how you get the list of the candidate files
to check in the first place.
> 1st, I add copyright notice to the README files shows this whole project is
> published under the LGPL license.
I think it's time to repeat what copyright notices are. What parts
do they consist of?
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/task/?16584>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
