Daniel Veillard wrote: > On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 08:17:01AM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: >> Daniel Veillard wrote: >> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:28:35PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: >> >> I realized it'd be nice to include instructions >> >> on how to build from a just-cloned repository, so copied >> >> most of this new file, README-hacking, from coreutils: >> > [...] >> >> +Copyright (C) 2002-2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc. >> >> + >> >> +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 >> >> +the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or >> >> +(at your option) any later version. >> >> + >> >> +This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, >> >> +but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of >> >> +MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the >> >> +GNU General Public License for more details. >> >> + >> >> +You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License >> >> +along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. >> > >> > Good idea but let's keep things LGPL :-) >> > >> > ACK once changed to proper Licence >> >> Doesn't the LGPL vs. GPL(3) issue matter only >> for something that is linked into the library? > > A README in the top level directory exposing a GPL licence is > an invitation to confusion. So no I stand by this, too bad if this means > we need to rewrite the part instead of copying it. How about if I just remove the copyright notice from that new file (README-hacking)? Besides, then it'll be consistent with README, which has none. -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list