Re: [Bug-gnulib] missing licenses in gnulib
Robert Millan wrote:
If you look into the glibc CVS log of sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128/s_atanl.c
and sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128/e_logl.c, you see that the copyright holder
(Stephen Moshier) has given permission to license them under LGPL.
This comes from François Pinard's libit-0.2, which is GPL.
coreutils - Jim Meyering.
A long-time GNU citizen, distributed as part of many GNU packages.
This is an automatically generated file. It's ridiculous to put a copyright
license on an automatically generated file if the generating program is
available under GPL, since anyone could take that generating program,
modify its printf() statements to emit a different license, and run the
I've put this under GPL now.
> The worst problem, however, is in the "m4" and "modules" directories, where
> most of the files are unlicensed.
For the m4 files, I propose to add the standard notice to them:
dnl Copyright (C) YEARS Free Software Foundation, Inc.
dnl This file is free software, distributed under the terms of the GNU
dnl General Public License. As a special exception to the GNU General
dnl Public License, this file may be distributed as part of a program
dnl that contains a configuration script generated by Autoconf, under
dnl the same distribution terms as the rest of that program.
Jim and Paul, is this OK with your gnulib/m4/*.m4 files?
About the modules/ files. I wrote most of them. What kind of copyright
would you find useful, given that it's only meta-information?
> There's also the problem with non-free documentation in "doc" directory (3
> files), but I'm aware that for the FSF freedom isn't important for
> documentation so I'm ommiting the list here.
Oh right, standards.texi is under GFDL. So this means that Debian will not
ship the GNU standards in the next release?