[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GPLv2 in new files

From: Richard Stallman
Subject: Re: GPLv2 in new files
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:18:14 -0400

    There should be no problem if they are "GPLv2 or later".

It is not a conflict, but it is a problem, because those files
were supposed to be uplicensed.

    since no material is supposed to be placed into CVS (apart from few
    well-known exceptions like MULE) that is not copyright-assigned to the
    FSF, making them GPLv3 or later should be possible regardless of what
    the files claim to be.

I presume these files are copyright FSF, but even if they were not, we
could still change "GPL version 2 or later" to "GPL version 3 or
later" if we want to.  We might decide not to do that, if we have not changed
them much.

    But it might be worth double-checking the assignment status when the
    license header appears all too surprising.

It is almost certain that what happened here is that the file
was installed after an assignment but someone forgot to change
the license notice.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]