-----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----- _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
