From: Erik H. <eh...@gm...> - 2009-02-10 21:10:56
|
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Mark Evenson <mev...@co...> wrote: > Author: mevenson > Date: Tue Feb 10 15:47:36 2009 > New Revision: 11654 > > Log: > 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 LICENSE applies? Especially since COPYING enumerates many of the clauses in LICENSE (not?). Bye, Erik. |
From: Mark E. <ev...@pa...> - 2009-02-11 07:01:55
|
Erik Huelsmann wrote: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Mark Evenson <mev...@co...> wrote: >> Author: mevenson >> Date: Tue Feb 10 15:47:36 2009 >> New Revision: 11654 >> >> Log: >> 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 > LICENSE applies? Especially since COPYING enumerates many of the > clauses in LICENSE (not?). 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? -- "A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare to it now." |
From: Ville V. <vil...@gm...> - 2009-02-11 19:24:39
|
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Mark Evenson <ev...@pa...> wrote: >>> Log: >>> 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. |
From: Mark E. <ev...@pa...> - 2009-02-12 07:38:55
|
Ville Voutilainen wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Mark Evenson <ev...@pa...> wrote: >>>> Log: >>>> 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 intentional? -- "A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare to it now." |
From: Ville V. <vil...@gm...> - 2009-02-12 08:27:02
|
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Mark Evenson <ev...@pa...> wrote: > Why was COPYING truncated in the first place? Inadvertently or was this > intentional? I don't recall any of us truncating it. Looks like it's just a mistake. |
From: Erik H. <eh...@gm...> - 2009-02-12 08:31:51
|
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Ville Voutilainen <vil...@gm...> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Mark Evenson <ev...@pa...> wrote: >> Why was COPYING truncated in the first place? Inadvertently or was this >> intentional? > > I don't recall any of us truncating it. Looks like it's just a mistake. > The current COPYING file was originally located in src/org/armedbear/lisp/LICENSE. However, since the COPYING file in the toplevel was therefor only applying to J, when we separated out J, I copied the latter file into the place of the former. Regards, Erik. |