On 5 April 2017 at 03:08, Bruno Haible wrote:
> > Do you have any objection to updating the "default" licenses on the files
> > to GPL so that there's no discrepancy with the gnulib documentation?
>
> No objection. Fine with me.
Thanks. I attach a patch to make this change.
--
http://rrt.s
> Do you have any objection to updating the "default" licenses on the files
> to GPL so that there's no discrepancy with the gnulib documentation?
No objection. Fine with me.
Bruno
On 4 April 2017 at 10:21, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Reuben Thomas asks:
> > > This is because there are alternative instructions for using these
> files
> > > without gnulib-tool. (Although I don't know whether anyone still goes
> > > with these lengthy instructions; gnulib-tool is quite accepted
> n
Reuben Thomas asks:
> > This is because there are alternative instructions for using these files
> > without gnulib-tool. (Although I don't know whether anyone still goes
> > with these lengthy instructions; gnulib-tool is quite accepted nowadays.)
>
>
> Where are these instructions?
They are i
On 20 March 2017 at 23:11, Bruno Haible wrote:
> 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 be
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
