Re: Release status 1.6.1 (2002-05-16)

[rm]

On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 10:44:20PM +0200, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> address@hidden writes:
> 
> > i think the whole licence/copyright issue is messy enough, let's try
> > to keep thinks as 'waterproof' as possible (refering to the text of
> > the README file to establish a legaly binding licence agreement
> > sounds rather risky :-)
> 
> This is not how it works.  The license of a file is specified by the
> individual file itself.  Most files in Guile refer to COPYING as a
> 'subroutine' when spelling out their license terms.  Most also have
> the exception (that is repeated in the README for convenience, only),
> but not all may.

Ups, ... so you are saying that i have to check each file of the guile
core distribution to see if i can use it for my needs/together/linked into
my software? Thanks for pointing this out to me. I allway assumed that 
there's _one_ licence for guile (why then all that hassle with the readline
libs?).

 
> So, to avoid confusion when using the standard GNU license statement
> ("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
> ..."), we should not modify the file COPYING.

I actually never sugested that. My points:

 - iff there is a file called copying i'd expect it to be the
   copyright statement for guile (i just lesrned there's notyhing like
   that).

 - If the GPL is included (and i really think it should), call it so,
   GPL.  

What's actually the common practise with other modified/extended/weakened
software? Maybe i'm to much used to Debian systems, but there you usually
find a file copyright that either holds the text of the copyright licence
for the package or points to the system location of the (L)GPL.

  Ralf 

> 
> _______________________________________________
> Guile-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel