Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Mark Evenson <evenson@...> wrote:
>>>> Add a stock copy of the GPLv2 that ABCL licensing is based.
>>> Umm, isn't this confusing? I mean, how would anyone know if COPYING or
>> Actually that's the problem here: COPYING contains none of the clauses
>> in LICENSE. Somehow we need a copy of the GPLv2 in the source
>> distribution, because COPYING refers to it as included but it just isn't.
>> Maybe rename 'LICENSE' to 'LICENSE.gplv2' to indicate that it is the
>> stock GPLv2?
> Couldn't we just include the GPLv2, in COPYING, and append the classpath
> exception into it? That is, the text that was previously in COPYING? It's very
> common that a file named COPYING contains the GPL, and we can add
> the classpath exception into the same file.
Sounds good to me.
Why was COPYING truncated in the first place? Inadvertently or was this
"A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is
nothing to compare to it now."