[Fedora-legal-list] License question

[Jochen Schmitt]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am 21.09.2010 21:54, schrieb Michel Alexandre Salim:
>
> 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.
I can confirm with you. The main issue is, that OSS developers are
technicans and no laywers. In an idial world each source file
has an own short copyright note in the header with a exact and
short license declaration and the upstream tar ball contains a
file with the literal text of the license. But remember, I have said
that developers are annoyed to talk about licensing stuff.

Best Regards:

Jochen Schmitt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iJwEAQECAAYFAkyZEvcACgkQZLAIBz9lVu90oQP/ZJoYUBiXyGjwQhyDCCpwIP//
DODgXaTvZlWELaU2iIuUHTd1Amea0LdnbkiC0eptqaXi1h31z0GbfbwFZ4+vWvg/
hHLg3Wz0fZFfvyeIpi6eJoCTNOvRcwJsnqcHoyI/6gFbzVXXBXerWLTVfmmu24Lx
PJ+53IuI8mlUVSxrK7Q=
=+u7g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----