Hi Peter, Sorry I missed the original mail til the thread grew ;-)
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 23:01 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > >>>> 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? yeah this is just an autotools default thing. Bickley is LGPL v2.1 as found in all the source files, and COPYING will be fixed to reflect that. Sorry for the confusion. Paul > >>> 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. > > Well in most cases where that is the situation there's a COPYING and a > COPYING.LIBRARY and its outlined in the README or something similar. > Looking through the entire codebase might be fine for a small library, > not really easy to do for something the size of openoffice or the > like, especially if you need to cross reference how its all compiled > together and which bits are applications, which are libraries within > the package. > > Peter > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
