From: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
To: Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
In-Reply-To: <87iqa2y0gz.fsf@steelpick.localdomain>
References: <87ljf8pvxx.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
	<87hbpwpoko.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
	<5641883d1002060727ia4e6c16lf800a92fc8735430@mail.gmail.com>
	<201002081614.24284.sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>
	<871vgr78lr.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
	<87iqa2y0gz.fsf@steelpick.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:33:41 -0800
Message-ID: <87r5oqe7mi.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Subject: Re: [notmuch] A functional (but rudimentary) test suite for notmuch
Precedence: list

--=-=-=

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:47:56 +0100, Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:
> I'm not lawyer, but I'd say it should be no problem to use GPLv2 test
> suite to test your GPLv3 application. You are not linking them
> together.

Right. We could do that. But we'd have to be careful to document things
carefully to keep track of things, (which the current patches at least,
don't do).

> On the other hand, if you want the tests cases to be GPLv3 then you are
> probably right. Is this the case?

I think things are a lot simpler if we keep everything in the repository
under a single license. So I'd prefer that.

-Carl

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLdYLm6JDdNq8qSWgRApi1AJ9zf8saGY+NAoX21cZNe3lrrjWXtgCdEQ93
qyA7YMboJT0VIrL4DWOFaQM=
=tDK+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--