On 01/18/2014 11:12 AM, Paul Menzel wrote: > "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > it > * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as > published > * by the Free Software Foundation, incorporated herein by reference." > > and then we can avoid this silly and unending address > discussion. > > (Note that Ron’s text disallows later versions of the GPL, which is > probably a mistake, which should be corrected.) > Whether code is licensed under GPLv2 or GPLv2+ is up to the individual contributor.
> It would be great if some “authority” could comment or some lawyer could > chime in, so that the texts in the repository do not become a mess as > some of Alex’ patch sets already have been committed. > The only mess is the long headers that include the address of the FSF. <ianal> <propietary_developer>: "Judge, I wrote to the address indicated in the header to get the full text, but I received no reply. Since we could not obtain the text of the license, we were not aware what conditions we had to comply to. How can this be a breach of contract since we never received the contract in the first place? " <Judge>: "Judgment for the defendant! [hammer strike]" </ianal> Alex -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
