Re: Release status 1.6.1 (2002-05-16)

[rm]

On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 05:01:08PM +0100, Neil Jerram wrote:
> >>>>> "Rob" == Rob Browning <address@hidden> 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
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel