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.