On Friday 17 August 2007, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > Labeling them as GPLv1+ is also arrogant and just as wrong to a > non-lawyer. When I read that clause and used the GPLv2 COPYING file > with my own code, I assumed that putting a GPLv2 COPYING file counted as > "specify a version number of this License". I agree it's not far fetched to guess this is what has happened in a lot of cases. But FWIW, my strong opinion remains that until upstream clarifies the intent (and clarification *should* really be asked if at all possible), the only possible choice for us is to comply with what is actually written in the license text. > As an alternative, we could have some boilerplate that specifically > explains the situation to the upstream author when we encounter a bare > "GPL" in the source code: This would be very useful indeed. Your boilerplate looks good to me, although I'd add some line breaks to make it slightly lighter to read. > P.S.: Do you agree or disagree with my assessment that a COPYING file in > the tarball and no licensing information in the source means the program > is unlicensed and therefore we must get a license from the author or > have to stop shipping the package in Fedora? I don't really have an informed nor a strong opinion about that, but perhaps I'm slightly leaning towards that this wouldn't be a show-stopper. Clarification should absolutely be asked in this case though. -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
