On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 16:35 -0400, Horst H. von Brand wrote: > 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!) Read the archives, I have already explained what I meant. And don't mistake what is unmodifiable (the license text) from what is: the file. It is the medium (or meta-medium ? :-) that contains the license text but that can contain other stuff as well. Simo. > -- > 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
