2.1b license.

2008-02-09 Thread Kurt Roeckx
Hi, It seems most of the files have this in them: # GNU Libtool 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.

Re: 2.1b license.

2008-02-09 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 07:21:35PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Hello Kurt, * Kurt Roeckx wrote on Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 07:13:00PM CET: It seems most of the files have this in them: # GNU Libtool is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify # it under the terms of the GNU

Re: 2.1b license.

2008-02-09 Thread Peter O'Gorman
Ralf Wildenhues wrote: But the COPYING file has version 3 in it. This reminds me, when doing the 1.5.26 release I started with a clean checkout, automake added COPYING v3, by chance I noticed and copied in v2. Should we commit COPYING to cvs to avoid this? Peter -- Peter O'Gorman

Re: 2.1b license.

2008-02-09 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote: This reminds me, when doing the 1.5.26 release I started with a clean checkout, automake added COPYING v3, by chance I noticed and copied in v2. Should we commit COPYING to cvs to avoid this? That certainly seems like a wise idea, particulary since

Re: 2.1b license.

2008-02-09 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 10:05:36PM CET: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote: Should we commit COPYING to cvs to avoid this? That certainly seems like a wise idea, particulary since there are legal implications if someone checks out the files and the COPYING