[Savannah-register-public] [task #4742] Submission of bit

[Rick L. Vinyard Jr.]

Follow-up Comment #3, task #4742 (project administration):

In regards to the question regarding the license. Yes, it should have been
marked as licensed as under the LGPL when I submitted the project request
since the headers I've been putting in actually state the Library GPL.
However, all the notices in the library have been changed to the Lesser GPL
as follows below:

/***************************************************************************
 *   Copyright (C) 2001 by Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.                            *
 *   address@hidden                                                  *
 *                                                                         *
 *   This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify  *
 *   it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as        *
 *   published by the Free Software Foundation version 2.1.                *
 *                                                                         *
 *   This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,       *
 *   but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of        *
 *   MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the         *
 *   GNU General Public License for more details.                          *
 *                                                                         *
 *   You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public      *
 *   License along with this library; if not, write to the                 *
 *   Free Software Foundation, Inc.,                                       *
 *   51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301  USA              *

***************************************************************************/

But, after following the links you provided, I technically have three
licenses inside this package. The primary purpose of this project is the bit
library, which I've put under the LGPL. This includes everything under the
'bit' and 'bitgtk' directories.

But, it doesn't make sense for the examples (several of which are
non-trivial) to be under the LGPL, and so I've put the example programs under
the GPL. This includes everything under the 'examples' directory.

However, I'm using doxygen to generate documentation and probably will
include other documentation that I'd like to put under the FDL. Accordingly,
everything under the 'docs' directory has FDL notices.

So, in summary:
  Libraries - LGPL
  Example Programs - GPL
  Documentation - FDL

I have also include the three licenses under COPYING_LGPL, COPYING_GPL and
COPYING_FDL.

Does this sound reasonable?


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?func=detailitem&item_id=4742>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/