Opened 13 years ago

Closed 12 years ago

#354 closed request (fixed)

automake and COPYING

Reported by: Peter Owned by: Jari Häkkinen
Priority: trivial Milestone: yat 0.5
Component: build Version: trunk
Keywords: Cc:

Description (last modified by Jari Häkkinen)

From the release of Automake 1.10.1

`automake --add-missing' will by default install the GPLv3 file
 as COPYING if it is missing.  Note that Automake will never
overwrite an existing COPYING file, even when the 
`--force-missing' option is used. 

This implies two things:

1) If the Release Manager has no COPYING file when starting to create a dist, GPLv3 might be included in the dist. This is very unlikely, but the Release Manager should keep it in mind.

2) When checking out a new copy from repository, there is currently no COPYING file, so when you issue bootstrap you will get the wrong COPYING file. A simple solution would be to check in COPYING to repository.

Related to ticket:436

Change History (11)

comment:1 Changed 13 years ago by Peter

Description: modified (diff)

comment:2 Changed 13 years ago by Jari Häkkinen

Maybe we should go for strictly GPL v3? We need to understand the implications of such a change.

comment:3 Changed 13 years ago by Peter

I think we should do that. It is just a matter of time. In fact since GSL has moved forward to version 3, perhaps we are forced to do so too, but I have to ask my lawyer to be sure.

Also a user is already allowed to use GPL3 because we say, in every file,

  ... either version 2 of the
  License, or (at your option) any later version.

Note, upgrading to GPL3 would not solve this issue though. If someone uses wrong version of automake, they will generate wrong version of COPYING. I think we should check in a file to avoid that.

comment:4 Changed 13 years ago by Peter

If we commit a file named COPYING will have an annoying effect.

Most users/developers have a file COPYING which is created by automake. Therefore, an svn update will fail if COPYING has been added. Obviously one can just remove the file and then svn update will not fail.

comment:5 Changed 13 years ago by Peter

Milestone: yat 0.x+yat 0.5

I suggest that we upgrade GPLv3 before yat 0.5. Anyone disagreeing, please be explicit on why?

Regarding the file COPYING: I think it is a bad idea to check in a file named COPYING for reasons mentioned above. However, I think the license should be included when you check out the project from svn repository. The file could be named, e.g., COPYING3 which is how GCC has solved the issue. For distributions there are mechanisms that allow us to ship COPYING3 in the name of COPYING rather then the file COPYING (created by automake).

comment:6 Changed 12 years ago by Jari Häkkinen

When we decide to go for GPLv3, add the proper COPYING version to the yat repository.

comment:7 Changed 12 years ago by Jari Häkkinen

Status: newassigned

comment:8 Changed 12 years ago by Jari Häkkinen

Description: modified (diff)

comment:9 in reply to:  5 ; Changed 12 years ago by Jari Häkkinen

Replying to peter:

Regarding the file COPYING: I think it is a bad idea to check in a file named COPYING for reasons mentioned above. However, I think the license should be included when you check out the project from svn repository. The file could be named, e.g., COPYING3 which is how GCC has solved the issue. For distributions there are mechanisms that allow us to ship COPYING3 in the name of COPYING rather then the file COPYING (created by automake).

GCC has both COPYING3 and COPYING checked into their repository. I think we should do similarly but I suggest that we add COPYING and COPYING_yat. The issue with svn update failing is a trivial problem to resolve. Comments before I go for my suggested fix?

comment:10 in reply to:  9 Changed 12 years ago by Peter

Replying to jari:

Replying to peter:

Regarding the file COPYING: I think it is a bad idea to check in a file named COPYING for reasons mentioned above. However, I think the license should be included when you check out the project from svn repository. The file could be named, e.g., COPYING3 which is how GCC has solved the issue. For distributions there are mechanisms that allow us to ship COPYING3 in the name of COPYING rather then the file COPYING (created by automake).

GCC has both COPYING3 and COPYING checked into their repository. I think we should do similarly but I suggest that we add COPYING and COPYING_yat. The issue with svn update failing is a trivial problem to resolve. Comments before I go for my suggested fix?

I agree the svn update failure is a very temporary headache. Regarding several COPYING files I think it should be enough having only one file (COPYING) containing GPLv3. The only things that go under version 2+ are a couple of the the 3rd party autoconf macros, so I don't see the need for GPLv2...

comment:11 Changed 12 years ago by Jari Häkkinen

Resolution: fixed
Status: assignedclosed

(In [1555]) Fixes #354. Remove COPYING file before At revision 1554. since it will block the update.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.