On Fri, 24 May 2019, Allison Randal wrote: > On 5/24/19 8:33 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > That above 'as is' add-on to the short disclaimer looks innocent enough for > > me, but then IANAL :) > > Nod, I think quite a few of these variants we'll ultimately decide can > be removed because they are the same terms as the standard GPL > disclaimer, even though the wording is slightly different. But, I also > completely agree it's better to collect them all together, and then > review them as a set, rather than making calls individually on-the-fly > as we go. Sure. I did not mean to call for ad hoc decisions. The reason why I posted this is that I worked on the disclaimer collection I posted yesterday again and did some comparisions to the full text disclaimer in GPLv2. Some of those magic disclaimers have a high similarity index :) Thanks, tglx
