From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2959 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2007 19:24:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 2811 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Aug 2007 19:24:28 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:24:22 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-213-159.inter.net.il [84.228.213.159]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id IOV86641 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 8 Aug 2007 21:49:01 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:24:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Joel Brobecker CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20070808181156.GA20477@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:11:56 -0700) Subject: Re: [RFA/GPLv3] Add COPYING3 to gdb Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20070808181156.GA20477@adacore.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00157.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:11:56 -0700 > From: Joel Brobecker > > 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 > . > > 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?