Opened 15 years ago
Closed 15 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 )
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 15 years ago by
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:2 Changed 15 years ago by
comment:3 Changed 15 years ago by
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 15 years ago by
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 follow-up: 9 Changed 15 years ago by
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 15 years ago by
When we decide to go for GPLv3, add the proper COPYING version to the yat repository.
comment:7 Changed 15 years ago by
Status: | new → assigned |
---|
comment:8 Changed 15 years ago by
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:9 follow-up: 10 Changed 15 years ago by
Replying to peter:
Regarding the file
COPYING
: I think it is a bad idea to check in a file namedCOPYING
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 shipCOPYING3
in the name ofCOPYING
rather then the fileCOPYING
(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 Changed 15 years ago by
Replying to jari:
Replying to peter:
Regarding the file
COPYING
: I think it is a bad idea to check in a file namedCOPYING
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 shipCOPYING3
in the name ofCOPYING
rather then the fileCOPYING
(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 15 years ago by
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | assigned → closed |
Maybe we should go for strictly GPL v3? We need to understand the implications of such a change.