Reuben Thomas wrote:
> That just leaves the discrepancy I noticed where relocatable.[ch]
> specifically mention the LGPL in the versions in gnulib git, whereas the
> manual says that all the git sources should mention the GPL.
This is because there are alternative instructions for using these fil
On 20 March 2017 at 22:06, Eric Blake wrote:
> [adding Gary in cc]
>
> Interesting - that file is not part of gnulib proper at the moment, but
> Gary's bootstrap project aims to be something that plays nicely with
> gnulib, and has the same directory layouts. In fact, the funclib.sh
> module in
[adding Gary in cc]
On 03/20/2017 04:53 PM, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> On 20 March 2017 at 21:31, Bruno Haible wrote:
>
>> Hi Reuben,
>>
>>> Although gnulib/lib/relocatable.[ch] are LGPL-licensed in their original
>>> forms in the gnulib source tree, they are rewritten to be under GPL, even
>>> thou
On 20 March 2017 at 21:31, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi Reuben,
>
> > Although gnulib/lib/relocatable.[ch] are LGPL-licensed in their original
> > forms in the gnulib source tree, they are rewritten to be under GPL, even
> > though I ask for relocatable-lib-lgpl. Is this a bug?
>
> You mean, you want
Hi Reuben,
> Although gnulib/lib/relocatable.[ch] are LGPL-licensed in their original
> forms in the gnulib source tree, they are rewritten to be under GPL, even
> though I ask for relocatable-lib-lgpl. Is this a bug?
You mean, you want the copyright notice to say "LGPL" instead of "GPL"?
This is
On 03/20/2017 08:04 AM, Reuben Thomas wrote:
Although gnulib/lib/relocatable.[ch] are LGPL-licensed in their
original forms in the gnulib source tree, they are rewritten to be
under GPL, even though I ask for relocatable-lib-lgpl. Is this a bug?
Sounds like a bug, yes. However, I did not repro
Although gnulib/lib/relocatable.[ch] are LGPL-licensed in their original
forms in the gnulib source tree, they are rewritten to be under GPL, even
though I ask for relocatable-lib-lgpl. Is this a bug?
--
http://rrt.sc3d.org
