[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] doc: clone+build instructions



Daniel Veillard wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 08:17:01AM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Daniel Veillard wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:28:35PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> >> I realized it'd be nice to include instructions
>> >> on how to build from a just-cloned repository, so copied
>> >> most of this new file, README-hacking, from coreutils:
>> > [...]
>> >> +Copyright (C) 2002-2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>> >> +
>> >> +This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> >> +it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>> >> +the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
>> >> +(at your option) any later version.
>> >> +
>> >> +This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>> >> +but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> >> +MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
>> >> +GNU General Public License for more details.
>> >> +
>> >> +You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
>> >> +along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>> >
>> > Good idea but let's keep things LGPL :-)
>> >
>> >    ACK once changed to proper Licence
>>
>> Doesn't the LGPL vs. GPL(3) issue matter only
>> for something that is linked into the library?
>
>   A README in the top level directory exposing a GPL licence is
> an invitation to confusion. So no I stand by this, too bad if this means
> we need to rewrite the part instead of copying it.

How about if I just remove the copyright notice from that new file
(README-hacking)?  Besides, then it'll be consistent with README,
which has none.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]