Peter Robinson wrote: > Hi Auke, > >>> I'd just like a clarification of the license for bickley. The >>> COPYING file states that its GPLv2 but the headers of all the c/h >>> files that I checked contains LGPLv2. Can someone clarify what the >>> proper license actually is? >> >> In general, the contents of the COPYING file is irrelevant and the >> header of each c/h-file declares the actual file. >> >> This allows developers to put mixed GPLv2/LGPLv2 code in one tarball >> (IOW, a library part, and a tool part based on that libary, for >> instance). >> >> Of course, the bickley author(s) need to confirm this, but you >> should certainly not assume anything from the presence of a >> "COPYING" file, and always look at the source code header. > > I'm aware of that, but it does help if what the intention of the > license is (lgpl library, gpl tool) for the entire tarball release is > documented somewhere central so that a packager or distro doesn't have > to cross reference a whole series of files to work out which is which > to work out what bits of the resultant compiled are licensed which > way. It makes life a little easier to ensure the intention of the > mixed license is adhered to.
that is normal, and I believe even a requirement in Debian packaging, so it does make sense for developers to take care that COPYING or whathever the license file is has something applicable in it. _______________________________________________ Moblin dev Mailing List [email protected] To manage or unsubscribe from this mailing list visit: http://lists.moblin.org/listinfo/dev or your user account on http://moblin.org once logged in. For more information on the Moblin Developer Mailing lists visit: http://moblin.org/community/mailing-lists
