[darcs-users] darcs patch: Note first batch of openssl license exceptions granted.

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Eric Kow writes:

 > ...which is likely a non-issue, for what it's worth.  We'll have to
 > review each of our non-responders and nos on a case by case basis,  I
 > suppose.  Documentation, makefile and other such changes will likely
 > not need to be taken into account (my ignorant intuition)

The Makefile definitely must be taken into account.  The FSF has
always maintained that Makefiles and other project-specific build
infrastructure are part of "the source" for a program.

In a copyleft project maintaining a self-documenting program, all
documentation should be under the same license (including multiple
licensing) as the source, or you find yourself in the embarrassing
position of requiring downstream to get your permission to copy
verbatim from your manual to augment your help strings, and vice
versa.  (Cf. advice given in the FDL, for example.  The FDL assumes
it's only a problem doc->src, but this example makes it clear that the
problem is symmetric.)