Kelly wrote:
On Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:11:20 am Eric Sandeen wrote:
So if sourcecode doesn't mention a version but COPYING does, it's still
interpreted as "or any later version?" Hm... that strikes me as odd.
I BELIEVE what they're trying to say is that if both the source and COPYING
contain different licence numbers, the source trumps the COPYING file.
Most of the time, the COPYING file is simply the GPL/LGPL copied verbatim from
the FSF site. As a result, I can understand why they would say look at the
source code.
However, I'd suspect in that case, the stuff in the COPYING is what counts. I
BELIEVE that the point of the "check the source" rule is to avoid situations
where the COPYING file conflicts with the source itself.
<sigh>, fine don't believe me I've only license audited 148 packages sofar, so
I probably don't know what I'm doing. But if you don't believe me then atleast
RTFM, quoting: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
"A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that
it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is
technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the
version in whatever COPYING file they include."
Regards,
Hans
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
