Re: COPYING says GPL, but all headers say LGPL
Craig Small <email@example.com> wrote:
> > reluctant to do this. Too much information kills information.
> I don't for any of my "autoconfed" packages. The output files have
> "do whatever" type of license, as does most output files of this type.
This makes me wonder about ppport.h in perl-XS packages; by default,
the generated ppport.h comes with a note saying it's licensed under the same
terms as perl itself.
However, if you run "perl ppport.h --strip", all documentation *and*
licensing information was removed. My feeling is that if the authors of
Devel::PPPort allow the license to be removed (while still leaving other
comments intact in the header file), that means that they really dont care
how the released file is licensed.
While most perl packages are released under the perl license, some
are released under a BSD-like license, etc.
How does debian feel about this? Does a perl package with the
ppport.h stripped need a mention of the perl license, if the package itself
is not under that license?