On 10/12/07, Mike.Sullivan at sun.com <Mike.Sullivan at sun.com> wrote: > > >From shivakumar.gn at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 04:04:49 2007 > > >[2] If you are ok with including *all* the applicable copyrights in > >the copyright file, this again solves the problem. We can give the > >complete & the right information > > - Installed files from the package are in the public domain > > - Additional test script that just co-exist(no compile/link/include > > dependency) in the sources is under GPL2. > > that's certainly fine, there are packages that do include > multiple copyrights/licenses (and some that should but don't). >
In that case I will go with this. With this, license info is right and everyone else is happy :) Will not make changes to any of the files now since the latest build has moved from the one I have (B74) and I might anyway need to recreate the patches at the time of integration. regards Shiv
