Why not? If we ensure that every user of the gnulib CVS understands it,
If someone comes across a file for whatever reason (eg, casually
browsing savannah cvs), and they see a license statement in that file,
it is obvious that they will assume that that is the license of the
file. When a license is not stated, then there can be reasons/cases to
look elsewhere, but when a license is stated, then it would be
unprecedented to think "that is not really the license".
I doubt there is any legal justification for it either, as it seems to
go against the whole principle of copyright. I can make any statement I
wish, eg, "You have to pay me $1000000 to download GNU Emacs", or, as in
this case, "File xxx is under the LGPL", but that doesn't make it
legally meaningful.
I can give you a 1-dollar bill
A different scenario. Gnulib is open to the public under copyright. It
is not a contractual agreement between two parties.
But I agree that it can be confusing.
I'm glad.
the --symlink option, in the coreutils situation,
will copy more files and symlink less files.
Is there a problem with having the LGPL'd files in coreutils? Does it
make any practical difference?
karl
