Re: files in gnulib copyright by someone other than the FSF

[Jim Meyering]

Paul Eggert wrote:

> On 09/05/11 16:41, Karl Berry wrote:
>>     There are a few files in gnulib that are not copyright of the FSF,
>>
>> There are?
>
> Yes, there are.  I expect there are several trivial files without
> any copyright notices (and which are public domain) but I just now
> audited gnulib for files that are copyright by someone other than the
> FSF and found the following.  Most seem benign, but the last entry
> may be problematic.
>
> build-aux/install-sh is copyrighted by X Consortium with an MIT license.

>From what I recall, for a build tool like this it's not as important.

> build-aux/po/Makefile.in.in is copyrighted by Ulrich Drepper and
> "can be copied and used freely without restrictions" (effectively
> public domain)

This is a Makefile snippet.  Isn't that ok?

> lib/fts_.h, lib/fts.c, lib/random_r.c are copyright by the Regents of the
> University of California with a modified BSD license.

These initially came from glibc.

> lib/cosl.h, lib/asinl.c, lib/sinl.c, lib/acosl.c, lib/trigl.c,
> lib/tanl.c, are copyright Sun Microsystems with an MIT-like license.

And these.

> lib/atanl.c and lib/logl.c are copyright Stephen L. Moshier under GPLv3
> or later.

And these.

> lib/inet_ntop.c and lib/inet_pton.c are copyright Internet Software Consortium
> with an MIT-like license.

Also glibc-derived.

> lib/filevercmp.[ch] are copyright Ian Jackson and Anthony Towns under GPLv3
> or later.

If it's really so important, we can ask them to assign copyright to the FSF.

> lib/gc.h is copyright Simon Josefsson under the GPLv2 or later.

I suspect that Simon will be happy to adjust that.

> lib/git-merge-changelog.c is copyright Bruno Haible under GPLv2 or
> later.

This is a separate application.

> tests/unigbrk/GraphemeBreakTest.txt and tests/uninorm/NormalizationTest.txt
> are copyright Unicode, Inc. under the Unicode Terms of Use
> <http://www.unicode.org/terms_of_use.html>.  Hmmm, those
> terms don't seem to allow changes, which would not be free software.

These seem to be mere test inputs.
Is the license unacceptable even for them?