Simo Sorce <ssorce@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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: It makes not much sense to handle "copied" vs "modified" COPYING here. In any case, the COPYING file (GPLv2) does /explicitly/ disallow distributing modified copies. Sure, if the COPYING (or README, etc) and the source disagree, it would be nice to ask upstream to clarify (AFAIU, each single file should explicitly state the license, as otherwise there is /no/ permission to copy it!) -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
