This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA/GPLv3] Add COPYING3 to gdb
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:48:59 +0300
- Subject: Re: [RFA/GPLv3] Add COPYING3 to gdb
- References: <20070808181156.GA20477@adacore.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:11:56 -0700
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
>
> I think the first step into moving to GPL v3 is to add a file named
> COPYING3 that contains a copy of the GPL v3 licensing terms.
Why COPYING3? why not just COPYING?
> I looked at the GCC sources, and this is what they did.
Emacs calls this file COPYING, not COPYING3.
> The GPL v2 license was still kept in COPYING.
Why do we need to keep GPL v2?
> The next steps are bulk updates of the headers in the source files.
> I propose the following header, which is a modified version of the
> current ones, and slightly modeled on the GCC ones as well (for the
> later part that talks about how to obtain the license terms).
>
> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> (at your option) any later version.
>
> 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 General Public License
> along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>
> Would that be an acceptable header?
Sorry, I don't understand why we need to change the current wording,
and why does the above mention GPL v2 instead of v3. Could you please
explain?