[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPLv2 in new files
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: GPLv2 in new files |
Date: |
Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:18:14 -0400 |
There should be no problem if they are "GPLv2 or later".
It is not a conflict, but it is a problem, because those files
were supposed to be uplicensed.
Actually,
since no material is supposed to be placed into CVS (apart from few
well-known exceptions like MULE) that is not copyright-assigned to the
FSF, making them GPLv3 or later should be possible regardless of what
the files claim to be.
I presume these files are copyright FSF, but even if they were not, we
could still change "GPL version 2 or later" to "GPL version 3 or
later" if we want to. We might decide not to do that, if we have not changed
them much.
But it might be worth double-checking the assignment status when the
license header appears all too surprising.
It is almost certain that what happened here is that the file
was installed after an assignment but someone forgot to change
the license notice.