Missing LICENSE/COPYING file in repository toplevel about winflexbison HOT 6 CLOSED

I was about to create COPYING GPLv3, but that would actually be wrong. This project is multi-licensed.

@AaronNGray You've specified GPLv3 back in SF, so if you don't say "no" I'll create a LICENSE file stating that the project (build scripts) is GPLv3 and add a COPYING in the root file (maybe have custom_build_rules/docs under FDL?) and also specify that the two main parts, bison and flex have their own licensing (possibly pointing to their COPYING file).

What do you think?

from winflexbison.

Ping @AaronNGray

from winflexbison.

@GitMensch Let's make the changes you proposed.

If @AaronNGray will complain we will discuss and implement other possible solutions.

from winflexbison.

Sounds fine, @lexxmark #76 is yours to merge (so we at least had four eyes on this).
If anything is wrong we can adjust in that branch, if everything is fine we can also merge that to the 2.7 branch.

[BTW: I guess the 3.4.1 branch can be deleted, please do so if that's true]

from winflexbison.

@GitMensch @lexxmark You need to go by the actual Unix Flex and Bison releases. I think they are GPLv3 hence me choosing that.

from winflexbison.

Bison is GPLv3+ since years, Flex was never GPL'd (see its license also found in this repo), but I'll add another note about those (so far we covered the build scripts and "own" documentation only). Done with 955f8af.

If you want to make the changes to Flex not only under GPLv3+ but under its own license (that's your two's Copyright after all) then I can also add the sentence "Changes to Flex and GNU Bison sources are provided under the project's original license", or similar [this would make it explicit and theoretically ease merges to upstream]).

from winflexbison.