From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17480431FBC for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:33:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.218 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.218 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, AWL=1.181, BAYES_00=-2.599] autolearn=ham Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TzsFvmt-LQeR; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:33:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from yoom.home.cworth.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63AEF431FAE; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:33:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by yoom.home.cworth.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1C98D25416E; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:33:48 -0800 (PST) From: Carl Worth To: Michal Sojka , notmuch@notmuchmail.org In-Reply-To: <87iqa2y0gz.fsf@steelpick.localdomain> References: <87ljf8pvxx.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <87hbpwpoko.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <5641883d1002060727ia4e6c16lf800a92fc8735430@mail.gmail.com> <201002081614.24284.sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> <871vgr78lr.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <87iqa2y0gz.fsf@steelpick.localdomain> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:33:41 -0800 Message-ID: <87r5oqe7mi.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Subject: Re: A functional (but rudimentary) test suite for notmuch X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:33:49 -0000 --=-=-= On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:47:56 +0100, Michal Sojka wrote: > I'm not lawyer, but I'd say it should be no problem to use GPLv2 test > suite to test your GPLv3 application. You are not linking them > together. Right. We could do that. But we'd have to be careful to document things carefully to keep track of things, (which the current patches at least, don't do). > On the other hand, if you want the tests cases to be GPLv3 then you are > probably right. Is this the case? I think things are a lot simpler if we keep everything in the repository under a single license. So I'd prefer that. -Carl --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFLdYLm6JDdNq8qSWgRApi1AJ9zf8saGY+NAoX21cZNe3lrrjWXtgCdEQ93 qyA7YMboJT0VIrL4DWOFaQM= =tDK+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--