diff admin/notes/copyright @ 75763:a188fe783bbe

*** empty log message ***

--- a/admin/notes/copyright	Sat Feb 10 22:25:51 2007 +0000
+++ b/admin/notes/copyright	Sat Feb 10 22:28:36 2007 +0000
@@ -134,7 +134,8 @@
 
 msdos/is_exec.c, sigaction.c
   - these files are copyright DJ Delorie. Leave the copyrights alone.
-  Leave the Eli Zaretskii copyright in is_exec.c alone.
+  Leave the Eli Zaretskii copyright in is_exec.c alone. See the
+  msdos/README file for the legal history of these files.
 
 src/gmalloc.c
   - contains numerous copyrights from the GNU C library. Leave them alone.
@@ -170,7 +171,8 @@
   lisp/term/README (author)?
   etc/BABYL?
   borderline "trivial" cases...?
-Apparently these should (all?) be placed under GPL. (asked for clarification)
+Apparently these should all be placed under GPL, rather than the short
+license we have been using till now.
 
 
 Clarify the legal status of many image files. It's not necessary
@@ -184,8 +186,6 @@
 admin/check-doc-strings
   Author is Martin Buchholz, but no assignment from him on file, and
   rms has no way to reach him.
-[FIXED  admin/make-announcement - no copyright]
-[FIXED  admin/nt/makedist.bat - no copyright]
 etc/ms-kermit - no copyright, but ms-7bkermit has one
 etc/e/eterm-color.ti  - no copyright
   rms: "I think that is not copyrightable under the merger doctrine
@@ -231,11 +231,6 @@
   - add standard notices to any decided to be non-trivial.
 
 
-[fix to be installed: msdos/is_exec.c, sigaction.c]
-  - do we need to add COPYING.LIB (because COPYING.DJ refers to it)?
-  can we relicense under the GPL? Do these contradict?
-
-
 oldXMenu/
  - should there be any FSF copyrights at all in here? Some were added
    in 2005, without licence notices. Was this right?
@@ -256,3 +251,4 @@
 REMOVED src/unexhp9k800.c
   - we would like to re-add this file if possible. Please let us know
   if you can clarify its legal status.
+  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-02/msg00138.html