Re: [autotools-idl] autotools-idl: licensing question

[Olaf M. <ol...@ma...>]

Vladimir Panov schrieb:
> Olaf Mandel wrote:
-Snipp-
>> * In autoconf-orb, none of the *.m4 files contain a license notice.
>> [...]
>> At the moment, as per the COPYING file, all these files are covered by
>> the GPL3, so an appropriate header would probably look like this:
-Snipp-
> I decided not to put a copyright notice in every source file because I
> read somewhere (I don't remember where) that a COPYING file is enough
> for the whole package. Anyway, I will put the notice for the next
> release, if this is required by Debian.

Hi Vladimir,

I am not sure if it is "required" by Debian. But I am not a
DebianDeveloper myself and have to rely on the goodwill of the real DDs
to upload the package for me. One reply I got raised the issue of these
files becoming part of the distributed files of other packages, so he
wanted the copyright directly included to make the issue more obvious to
users of autoconf-orb.

If you don't mind, I will add the GPL3 header (the longer one I gave as
an example in the previous mail) to the package so I don't have to wait
for the next release.

>> * The license for autoconf-orb is GPLv3+ (with the autoconf exception).
>> This differs from the GPLv2+ that is used for autoconf and automake-idl.
>> Is this intentional?
-Snipp.
> If you feel that I 'm wrong here, please let me know why. I can easily
> revert back to GPLv2.
> 
I do not mind (I am a bit of a fan of the new GPLv3, myself). I just
wanted to rule out that the license was automatically applied by
"automake --add-missing" or the like, as has been guessed/feared by a DD.

-Snipp-
> 2. If you know any reason for autoconf-orb to be switched back to GPLv2
> then let me know.
I can't think of any reason.

> 3. Anything else?
Not at the moment. I will keep you apprised of any development on the
Debian-Inclusion front.

Best regards,
Olaf
-- 
Olaf Mandel              eMail Ol...@Ma...