>> Side note: in "git", we kind of discussed this. And because the project >> was started when the whole GPL version discussion was already in bloom, >> the git project has a note at top of the COPYING file that says: >> >> Note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as this project >> is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not >> v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. >> >> HOWEVER, in order to allow a migration to GPLv3 if that seems like >> a good idea, I also ask that people involved with the project make >> their preferences known. In particular, if you trust me to make that >> decision, you might note so in your copyright message, ie something >> like >> >> This file is licensed under the GPL v2, or a later version >> at the discretion of Linus. >> > > Actually, this didn't catch on very well anyway, I guess because most >people just know it's GPLv2 and don't even bother to peek at COPYING, we >are a bit sloppy about copyright notices and most of them don't mention >licence at all (if there are any in the file at all), and adding >explicit copyright notices to mails isn't too popular either. Would every file that does not contain an explicit license (this excludes MODULE_LICENSE) falls under COPYING? > $ git grep 'discretion' > COPYING: at the discretion of Linus. > git-annotate.perl:# at the discretion of Linus Torvalds. > git-relink.perl:# Later versions of the GPL at the discretion of Linus Torvalds > git-request-pull.sh:# at the discretion of Linus Torvalds. > >and I've found no patches with such special assignment. Jan Engelhardt -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html