On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:10:56 +0200 Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:25:01AM -0400, Christopher Covington wrote: > > As I understand it, the license authors. They find it important to maintain > > clarity even when files get copied into other projects. > > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html > > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoticeInSourceFile > > Right, so what is wrong with stating the same thing in two lines: > > "Copyright (c) 2011-2013, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved. > > This file is licensed under GNU GPLv2. See COPYING for full license text. The COPYING file may not be present. There may be cases where the absence of the warranty statement in the header is problematic etc etc. Corporate legals have their own policies on this and there is no point fighting them because - they are the ones qualified to make the decision - the corporate legal angle is often "do this or don't release it" - we have huge numbers of files using that same no warranty in every file, and major companies who specify it must be present in their code releases Including the without warranty is standard practice at a lot of companies. It's not even wasting space - it'll compress beautifully as there are already lots of similar headers all over the tree. Alan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
