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.
Sure that would be nice. Unfortunately, neither autotools nor anyone else has tried to make a standard for specifying the license of software inside a package. Feel free to suggest a standard? What if Bickley was dual licensed. How would the presence of one COPYING file work for you? You'd have missed the COPYING.also file right next to it.... Better to actually check thoroughly before you use software, at all times. Auke _______________________________________________ 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
