Miles Bader wrote:
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <
stephen@...> writes:
>
>> > Sorry for the mess but, whatcha gonna do?
>>
>> Is there a mess? Legally, it's perfectly clear that it's GPLv2-only.
>>
>
> The issue, AFAICS is simply that some people actually _intend_ to follow
> "FSF practice" and make their files GPLVx+, but don't realize they need
> to say this. So it would generally help to reduce confusion to use an
> explicit statement in each file, even in case where it's technically
> redundant.
>
> -Miles
>
>
The mess from my part is just paperwork. I'm happy with any of /my/ code
under v2 or v3 (and, indeed, slightly prefer v3 for reasons not
important here).
So flip any files you like *EXCEPT DON'T* unless you sort out who the
copyright-significant contributors are to the various files and get them to
agree to the change too -- which is, what I gather, Andy is reporting
that the FSF
is doing.
It's a slight mess. A bunch of tedious shuffling and permissions
gathering that,
ideally, ought not to have been an issue at this late date.
(I still think it's a pretty *minor* mess but, it is a mess.)
-t
_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-usersGNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
