Re: [Bug-gnulib] missing licenses in gnulib

[Bruno Haible]

Robert Millan wrote:
>   lib/atanl.c
>   lib/logl.c

If you look into the glibc CVS log of sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128/s_atanl.c
and sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128/e_logl.c, you see that the copyright holder
(Stephen Moshier) has given permission to license them under LGPL.

>   lib/diacrit.c

This comes from François Pinard's libit-0.2, which is GPL.

>   lib/dirfd.h
>   lib/getpagesize.h

coreutils - Jim Meyering.

>   lib/alloca.c

A long-time GNU citizen, distributed as part of many GNU packages.

>   lib/lbrkprop.h

This is an automatically generated file. It's ridiculous to put a copyright
license on an automatically generated file if the generating program is
available under GPL, since anyone could take that generating program,
modify its printf() statements to emit a different license, and run the
generating program.

>   tests/test-stpncpy.c

I've put this under GPL now.

> The worst problem, however, is in the "m4" and "modules" directories, where
> most of the files are unlicensed.

For the m4 files, I propose to add the standard notice to them:

dnl Copyright (C) YEARS Free Software Foundation, Inc.
dnl This file is free software, distributed under the terms of the GNU
dnl General Public License.  As a special exception to the GNU General
dnl Public License, this file may be distributed as part of a program
dnl that contains a configuration script generated by Autoconf, under
dnl the same distribution terms as the rest of that program.

Jim and Paul, is this OK with your gnulib/m4/*.m4 files?

About the modules/ files. I wrote most of them. What kind of copyright
would you find useful, given that it's only meta-information?

> There's also the problem with non-free documentation in "doc" directory (3
> files), but I'm aware that for the FSF freedom isn't important for
> documentation so I'm ommiting the list here.

Oh right, standards.texi is under GFDL. So this means that Debian will not
ship the GNU standards in the next release?

Bruno