I will discuss the issue with the Automake maintainer. I have never
used Automake myself, so I don't know the issues.
One fact I can see is that this is just a matter of defaults, and
doesn't stop users from doing whatever they want. Please don't
exaggerate.
Making Automake have different defau
Ralf:
However, just populating the file with an arbitrary license seems an
error-prone way to enforce the standard.
It's not arbitrary. Actually, until the switch to GPLv3, I cannot
remember anyone complaining about this feature of Automake. I don't
think anybody ever complained that automa
* Brian Cameron wrote on Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 06:05:57AM CEST:
>
> Indeed, it isn't uncommon for a module to have differing licenses.
> That is pretty normal. However, I would think that the authors of the
> source code should be the people deciding how their code should be
> licensed, rather than
Ralf:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
[ Regarding the fact that the GNOME module gconf-editor (among other
modules) is actually licensed under the GPLv2 license but automake is
automagically and silently generating a COPYING file with a GPLv3
license ]
So does this mean that modules like gconf-e
Hello Brian,
Thanks for the feedback.
* Brian Cameron wrote on Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 09:33:20PM CEST:
>
> I notice that the latest versions fo automake cause a COPYING file to
> be created with the GPLv3 license in them, if the COPYING file does not
> already exist.
Yes. If you want to keep it a
