On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 12:45:03AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > That won't work well, because it's common for developers to use > symbolic links to gnulib source files, not munged copies of the source > files.
Understood. Thanks for clearing that up for me. > The proposed permissions wording in > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2007-10/msg00225.html> > attempts to do that. The idea is to distribute just one version of > the source code file, not N different versions depending on license > (which is a pain for maintainers, due to version-management issues). > Also, this should make it clearer to all recipients of a source code > file exactly what licenses the file can be distributed under. Right. I'll go ahead and take that to RMS, then, so we can hammer out something final. Should I keep bug-gnulib CC:ed on that thread? If not, does anybody in particular want to be in the loop for it? Or if you all would prefer, I can just send the final text back to this list once the dust settles. Thanks, -- Brett Smith Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation
