Daniel Veillard <veillard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... >> The authoritative source for the license is specified in >> the module-definition file, gnulib/modules/c-ctype. It is LGPLv2+. > > Looks quite confusing. The .h file says this module is under Licence X > and somewhere a text file says it's under a different Licence Y. My instinctive > reaction (and I guess i'm not the only one) is to assume the licencing > information in the source would be the one binding from a legal POV, > but IANAL, so all i can say is that it looks weird. > >> Besides, our invocation of gnulib-tool (in bootstrap) requires that >> any module be compatible with LGPLv2+ via its --lgpl=2 option, >> so this is checked automatically. You may rest assured that >> any module I propose for addition has the right copyright. >> In addition, when gnulib-tool copies the files into gnulib, it >> rewrites the license to be what we require: > > Okay, i assume there is no problem, changing licences when copying > exceeds my limited understanding, but there is certainly a good and > legally okay reason for that, but I'm fine to stay ignorant as long > as you tell me it's okay :-) Yes, it's confusing, and we'd like it to be fixed. It will be, eventually. -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list