Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> writes:

>>>> "RS" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
>> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
>> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
>>> Ok thanks for this clarification. So to sum it up, the safest practise
>>> is to have a LICENSE file *and* a LICENSE header in each source file?
>
>> I am not sure what that means.  What would you put in the LICENSE file?
>> (When you say "a LICENSE header", I think you mean a license notice.)
>
>> Normally we have a file COPYING which contains only a copy of the GNU
>> GPL version 3, and each file has a license notice.
>
> That is what I was referring to. The Debian person who contacted me,
> asked me whether it would be possible to have a LICENSE file in the
> package. So I simply thought of using the content of the COPYING file
> and call it LICENSE. Is this a problem?

That’s not a problem, no.

> My pleasure, anything that makes emacs more popular is worth the effort.

♡

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein,
ohne es zu merken.
draketo.de