Merge lp://staging/~gz/goose/fixup_license into lp://staging/goose

Reviewers: mp+160681_code.launchpad.net,

Message:
Please take a look.

Description:
Cleanup copyright and license information

As raised during the debian packaging for juju-core and its
dependencies, goose
doesn't currently state the copyright holder. This branch adds a LICENSE
file
with the normal preamble GNU suggests and a reference to COPYING.LESSER
included. I'm assuming the reason we have both COPYING ad COPYING.LESSER
was
that we changed our minds, as there's no real reason to dual license
those two.

https://code.launchpad.net/~gz/goose/fixup_license/+merge/160681

(do not edit description out of merge proposal)

Please review this at https://codereview.appspot.com/8607047/

Affected files:
   D COPYING
   A LICENSE
   A [revision details]

Thanks, LGTM, trivial.

https://codereview.appspot.com/8607047/

Actually, we have to have both COPYING and COPYING.LESSER.

LGPL is an extension *to* the GPL, not a complete license its own right.

So if you want to give the full license, you include both.
You can actually read it, but 0 is "Additional Definitions" meaning
things beyond what was defined in GPL. And (1) is an *Exception* to
Section 3 of the GPL, etc.

So please, do not delete COPYING. You're right that we aren't cross
licensing. We are just LGPL but that requires having the content of GPL
around.

https://codereview.appspot.com/8607047/

To be clear:

1) Deleting COPYING: NOT LGTM
2) Addin License: LGTM

https://codereview.appspot.com/8607047/

On 2013/04/25 06:38:35, jameinel wrote:

> So please, do not delete COPYING. You're right that we aren't cross
licensing.
> We are just LGPL but that requires having the content of GPL around.

Guu, how confusing. Can't we just say screw it and use three-clause bsd
instead? :)

https://codereview.appspot.com/8607047/

Please take a look.

https://codereview.appspot.com/8607047/