On Tue 2017-11-07 14:15:26, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 06:46:58PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Given that it had no license text on it at all, it "defaults" to GPLv2, > > > so the GPLv2 SPDX identifier was added to it. > > > > > > No copyright was changed, nothing at all happened except we explicitly > > > list the license of the file, instead of it being "implicit" before. > > > > Well if Christoph owns the copyright (if there is one) and he has stated > > he believes it is too trivial to copyright then it needs an SPDX tag that > > indicates the rightsholder has stated it's too trivial to copyright and > > (by estoppel) revoked any right they might have to pursue a claim. > > If Cristoph has revoked any right to pursue a claim, then he's also > legally given up the right to complain if, say, Bradley Kuhn starting > distributing a version with a GPLv3 permission statement --- or if Greg > K-H adds a GPLv2 SPDX identifier. :-) Yes, maybe Greg can legaly do that. That does not make it good idea... and we have higher standards than "not illegal in most countries" :-). Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
