On 8.2.2016 18:28, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Petr Stodulka <pstodulk@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 4.2.2016 20:15, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Petr Stodulka <pstodulk@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> I found that license file COPYING is different as compared with >>>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt If I pass over with >>>> Linus's preamble, change is only about whitespaces - tabs >>>> vs. space. Probably it's minor non-essential change, but some >>>> projects do this change, so rather I ask about that. >>> >>> Interesting. I cannot quite connect "some projects do this change" >>> and "so rather I ask". Are you asking why this project changed it? >> >> Nope. I apologize for my czenglish. It means: From my colleagues I hear, >> that some projects had same differences (tabs vs. spaces) in their copy >> of the license file and they make it later equivalent with the one in >> gnu.org. > > I'd guess that these projects (among which Linux kernel still has > these indentation the same as the copy we have) and we independently > obtained the COPYING file from GNU in some past, and back then the > copy at GNU was indented that way--which later was changed. > > The Wayback Machine supports this theory. > > https://web.archive.org/web/20070713225446/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt > > i.e. the FSF copy back in 2007-07 indented these section headers > with tabs, so those projects that obtained this copy would have > their sections indented with tabs. > > At 703601d6 (Update COPYING with GPLv2 with new FSF address, > 2010-01-15), we did a fresh update directly from the URL you cited > above to primarily replace the addresses of the FSF office. > > https://web.archive.org/web/20100105100239/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt > > matches what we use (minus Linus's preamble, of course). > > The file before that change was what Linus copied from Linux kernel > project. The kernel project did their equivalent change at their > b3358a11 ([PATCH] update FSF address in COPYING, 2005-09-10), and > the log message says http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt was used. > > The Wayback Machine agrees. > > https://web.archive.org/web/20050901115237/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt > > i.e. the FSF copy back in 2005-09 matches what the kernel uses > (again, minus Linus's preamble). I have expected that license was copied correctly in the past from gnu.org, when same differences are in various projects. I just point out on another change. Thank You for tip about web.archive.org - I really don't know about that web and it can be useful. > >> So I ask rather here / point out this difference, if you know >> about that or you want to have same one. > > So the answers are: > > - No, I didn't personally know about the differences, and I suspect > nobody particularly cared. > > - Not really, unless the difference has more substance. For an > example of an update with substance, the update we did in 2010 > had not just the FSF address change but also updated the fully > spelled name of LGPL from Library to Lesser. Thank You for reponse. > > You may want to bug the kernel folks to update their copy; they > still spell it as Library General Public License. > Everyone can do that. I believe that someone report it already or at least constult it. I write about this here because I should do that. When You know about this difference in license in kernel, I believe that they know it too and they decide it is ok. Regards, Petr
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature