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.