On Thu, 23 May 2019, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 5:29 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Based on 1 normalized pattern(s): > > > > gnupg is free software you can redistribute it and or modify it > > under the terms of the gnu general public license as published by > > the free software foundation either version 2 of the license or at > > your option any later version gnupg is distributed in the hope that > > it will be useful but without any warranty without even the implied > > warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose see > > the gnu general public license for more details you should have > > received a copy of the gnu general public license along with this > > program if not write to the free software foundation inc 59 temple > > place suite 330 boston ma 02111 1307 usa > > At least some of these bear FSF copyrights. I noticed some other > patches that made reference to "GNU CC" (suggesting the code may have > been taken from old versions of GCC?) but I am not sure they had FSF > copyrights. > > I feel it is especially awkward to remove the continuously-preferred > legal notice of the copyright holder, particularly when that copyright > holder is also the recognized license steward of the license in > question. Since John Sullivan is on this list maybe he can comment. > Obviously if the FSF is okay with it, it's fine, but I am not sure > that is John's view given a comment he made the other day. > > As a generalization of the above concern, it seems relatively > problematic to me to replace license notices that were attached to > code taken from non-Linux projects, where that is evident, compared to > code contributed to Linux in the first instance. (Similarly, I would > normally not advise Red Hat employees to alter upstream third-party > legal notices downstream, except in very unusual circumstances.) > > --- a/lib/mpi/mpi-bit.c > > +++ b/lib/mpi/mpi-bit.c > > @@ -1,21 +1,8 @@ > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later > > /* mpi-bit.c - MPI bit level fucntions > > * Copyright (C) 1998, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > > * > > * This file is part of GnuPG. We keep the reference of course. > > - * > > - * GnuPG is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > > - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by > > - * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or > > - * (at your option) any later version. > > - * > > - * GnuPG is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, > > - * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > > - * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the > > - * GNU General Public License for more details. > > - * > > - * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License > > - * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software > > - * Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA So if FSF insists on keeping this, then we need at least fix the address. It's outdated.... And looking at quite some of the other boilerplate, including stuff which originates from FSF/GNU, then there is not only outdated information, there is also actively misleading information like the wide spread link to: http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html which both bring you to the GPL v3 page. This one: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/ is not really making anything clear either. Thanks, tglx
