On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Jochen Schmitt <Jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > 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 >>> okay? >> >> 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 > should release. > 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. Thanks, -- Michel Alexandre Salim Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/ Email: salimma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | GPG key ID: 78884778 Jabber: hircus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | IRC: hircus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
