From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: rm@fabula.de Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Release status 1.6.1 (2002-05-16) Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 18:59:39 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <20020526165939.GA27611@www> References: <878z6jn0uw.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <87r8k41h0j.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <87r8k41ctd.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1022432237 7275 127.0.0.1 (26 May 2002 16:57:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 16:57:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Rob Browning , Marius Vollmer , guile-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17C1KX-0001tE-00 for ; Sun, 26 May 2002 18:57:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17C1KK-0002uX-00; Sun, 26 May 2002 12:57:04 -0400 Original-Received: from www.elogos.de ([212.18.192.92]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17C1Hf-0002l3-00 for ; Sun, 26 May 2002 12:54:19 -0400 Original-Received: by www.elogos.de (Postfix, from userid 5001) id 92C1F1049B9; Sun, 26 May 2002 18:59:39 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Neil Jerram Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:652 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:652 On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 05:01:08PM +0100, Neil Jerram wrote: > >>>>> "Rob" == Rob Browning writes: > > Rob> Anyway, not a big deal either way -- since the README mentions the > Rob> exception, I guess most people are likely to read that even before > Rob> checking COPYING. I'm now OK with closing this bug if you like. > > Just an idea: we could leave COPYING as is, and add COPYING-GUILE to > explain the exception and refer to COPYING. Then most people going to > look for COPYING would notice COPYING-GUILE as well. The text for > COPYING-GUILE can be the same as what is currently in README. Hmm, just in my own experience, COPYING is _the_ file i look at to determine the licence of the software. If i find the GPL i would assume that the whole software _is_ GLPed (which GUILE is not). If putting Guile's license under the name COPYING feels strange, why not just name it LICENCE and name the GPL 'GPL-LICENCE'? Just naming the GPL copying out of tradition even so it's not the legal copying restriction sounds rather odd to me - i think the whole licence/copyright issue is messy enough, let's try to keep thinks as 'waterproof' as possible (refering to the text of the README file to establish a legaly binding licence agreement sounds rather risky :-) Ralf Mattes > Neil > > > _______________________________________________ > Guile-devel mailing list > Guile-devel@gnu.org > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel