Re: [volunteers] small LGPL project

[Nils Barth <barth math uchicago edu>]

> > Also, Pango's COPYING file contains the LGPL 2, while the README 
> > says the license is LGPL 2.1 (the Library or Lesser GPL 2.1).
> 
> which reminds me.
> 
> the glib and gtk+ sources currently contain (in most places at least):
> 
> [...]
>  * This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>  * modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public
>  * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
>  * version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> [...]
> 
> this needs to be changed to:
> 
> [...]
>  * This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>  * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
>  * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
>  * version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> [...]
> 
> 
> i.e. Library GPL -> Lesser GPL and s/1997-1999/1997-2000/
> 
> this has to be changed somewhen before the 2.0 release. if some kind
> soul would volunteer for this task and send a patch agains cvs HEAD,
> that'd greatly be apprechiated.
> 
> in case someone actually tackles this issue:
> - take it as a perl contest challenge, some files are formatted more
>   equally than others ;)

actually, doesn't this need to be done every year, and every time there's
a license change (hopefully less than yearly ;-). 
Thus, wouldn't it be best to:
 - Provide a script to change correctly formatted files (i.e., with proper
   boiler-plate)
 - Make a patch so that all files have the correct header
 - Document this so that new files follow the pattern</pedant>
 - Have the GTK+ maintainers just run the (hopefully simple) script
   each year to update the copyrights/etc.?

-- 
  -nils