Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com> wrote: ...
The authoritative source for the license is specified in the module-definition file, gnulib/modules/c-ctype. It is LGPLv2+.
Looks quite confusing. The .h file says this module is under Licence X and somewhere a text file says it's under a different Licence Y. My instinctive reaction (and I guess i'm not the only one) is to assume the licencing information in the source would be the one binding from a legal POV, but IANAL, so all i can say is that it looks weird.
Besides, our invocation of gnulib-tool (in bootstrap) requires that any module be compatible with LGPLv2+ via its --lgpl=2 option, so this is checked automatically. You may rest assured that any module I propose for addition has the right copyright. In addition, when gnulib-tool copies the files into gnulib, it rewrites the license to be what we require:
Okay, i assume there is no problem, changing licences when copying exceeds my limited understanding, but there is certainly a good and legally okay reason for that, but I'm fine to stay ignorant as long as you tell me it's okay :-)
Yes, it's confusing, and we'd like it to be fixed. It will be, eventually.