[Bug-gnubg] Somewhat outdated GPL license notices

[Russ Allbery]

While reviewing the license information of the current source, I noticed
that most of the source files use a somewhat obsolete and somewhat unusual
form of the GPL 3 license notice.  I'm not sure whether this is worth the
effort to change, but if someone has a moment, it does make automated
license analysis easier.

Most of the files have some form of:

 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of version 3 or later of the GNU General Public License as
 * published by the Free Software Foundation.
 *
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 *
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
 * Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307  USA

right now.  The recommended notice from the GPL v3 is:

 * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 *
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 *
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

There are also a few other variations in different places: "library"
instead of "program," or versions of the standard notice that say
something like "either version 3 or later of the License, or (at your
option) any later version," which doesn't really make sense.

There's also the more general problem that, contrary to the GPL
recommendation, most of the files are missing copyright notices, but
that's probably much harder to fix properly.

-- 
Russ Allbery (address@hidden)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>