On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 09:30 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:22:30 -0400 > Simo Sorce <ssorce@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I think this is wrong, I am sorry I didn't catch it before, but if > > COPYING is not just a mere copy of the GPL license as published by the > > FSF, but it is actually an obviously edited file which express the > > intention of the Author, it do matter by all means, and it express the > > license you should use. > > Of course conflicts with the license in single source files have to be > > resolved, but if source files lack any mention of the license version > > they are under, what matter is what's in COPYING. IMO IANAL > > But what if the file isn't modified, and is obviously a verbatim copy > from the webpage? It depends on the case imo. This would me my interpretation: 1. COPYING verbatim copied, source specify version: source wins 2. COPYING verbatim copied, source does not specify anything: COPYING wins 3. COPYING verbatim copied, source lack only the version: IMO best course is to contact the authors, but I guess here Spot reasoning is the best we can do == any version 4. COPYING modified, source specify version: check for conflicts, more restrictive wins (also a good idea is to contact the authors to recompose the conflicts) 5. COPYING modified, source does not specify anything: COPYING wins 6. COPYING modified, source lack only the version: COPYING wins Simo. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
