On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Jochen Schmitt <Jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Am 21.09.2010 21:34, schrieb Tom "spot" Callaway:
>> The gpl.txt file included in the package is of version 3 of the
>> license, but the preamble doesn't state a version. Is this
> It's okay, but if no version is specified in the code or
> corresponding documentation (note: _NOT_ COPYING), then it is GPL+.
Why not COPYING? If an author copying a license text in his
upstream distribution, their declares that the terms written
down in this document should be apply to this work which
IANAL, but I've seen project websites where the license declaration
just link to the current GPL page on the GNU website, even when this
might conflict with what the headers on the source files actually say.
Presumably the situation with bundled COPYING files are the same --
that, given that the files might become detached from the bundle and
reused elsewhere (hello, Sun RPC), that we can't attach any legal
significance to the copyright file that comes with the bundle or is
posted on a website, certainly not when it comes to details as to
which version is to be used.
Naturally, I'm just speculating here and I'd love to either get
confirmed or rebutted.
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/
Email: salimma(a)fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: 78884778
Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus(a)irc.freenode.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
- against proprietary attachments