On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 22:38 +0200, Christophe Varoqui wrote: > Martin is right, the LGPL COPYING was added Sun May 1 15:05:22 2005. > Every file added to the tree since then and up to Xose patch > switching COPYING to GPL, and not explicitely licensed otherwise can > be assumed to be covered by the LGPL. > It was not intended to relicense any files, nor switch to GPL as the > default license for new files without explicit licensing. > > Hope it clears the history part of the mess, and helps identify a > solution. > > I see FSF recommends the COPYING+COPYING.LESSER file names, as Xose > implemented. What if we just add a LICENSE file stating that files > with no explicit copying* reference fall under the COPYING.LESSER ?
That'd be a good start. I'll shortly submit a license README file that summarizes my research into the current situation. You can then decide if you want to add it to the tree, or what else to do with it. Martin -- Dr. Martin Wilck <mwi...@suse.com>, Tel. +49 (0)911 74053 2107 SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- dm-devel mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel