Re: Libiberty license roundup (questions/potential problems)

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>]

I wrote a longer message about this, but then lost it.  :-)

The following is a problem.  Some files say "This file is part of the 
libiberty library.  This library... under the terms of the GNU General 
Public License..."

Others say "This file is part of the libiberty library.  Libiberty... 
under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License..."

If "this library" is read to mean "the libiberty library", then one file 
says "libiberty can be used under the LGPL", while a GPLed file says 
"I'm part of libiberty".  This isn't so good.

I therefore suggest the "This file" or "This program" form of 
boilerplate for all files in libiberty to make the separate licenses quite
clear and distinct.  The line "This file is part of the libiberty 
library" is fine, provided the rest of the lines state 
specifically that they apply only to 'this file', not to the whole of 
'the libiberty library'.

Alternatively, "libiberty" could be properly restricted to files with a 
certain licence (or licenses which can be 'converted' to that one); 
those files could say "Libiberty is..." while the others (pure GPL, 
for instance) would say "This file is..." or  "This file is part of GCC.  
GCC is..." or some such.  But that's more confusing.  :-)

--Nathanael