Hello, On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 09:52:40PM +0200, John Kacur wrote: > On Mon, 5 Oct 2015, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > The source tree contains the complete GPL so that paragraph isn't that > > useful. > > You can correct the address if you want to, but IANL, but if the Free > Software Foundation says you should put that at the top of the file, I > don't think you can just decide for yourself that you don't need to, just > because you know you are doing the right thing by including a copy of the > licence. I'm not a lawyer either just applied common sense (or what I think is common sense). For GPL-3 the address isn't included any more, there it's just: You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. And I understand that snippet as an example. After all it also recommends to say "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." which isn't used everywhere either. And given that correcting the address now make us correct the address once more when the FSF moves the next time I still think dropping wrong addresses is the right thing to do. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
