> When a file does not have a license, again, all lawyers I have worked > with said it is implicitly GPLv2 I am surprised that they did not immediately see the fact that since the code contributor was not neccessarily the rights holder you could make no assumption as to the actual licencing beyond it being GPL compatible (or having a right to sue whoever put it there). Did you explain the contribution process sufficiently clearly ? > Again, no, the copyright was not changed. Whom ever held the original > copyright still holds it today. On the contrary if it was implicitly LGPL you've just exercised the right to make it GPL and messed it up for others. In the other cases your error is probably legally actionable in certain jurisdictions if someone was so unpleasantly minded. Alan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
