Follow-up Comment #7, task #13205 (project administration): > Well, given VCS history I don't think we can set an appropriate copyright... Anyway we're already looking for a solution for this...
Thank you! > It's just a pointer, like own's GPL usage, though less verbose, of course, and much more direct. The pointed file contains all the information, including copyright and license version. > > I'm curious why do you think it doesn't do. Is it not understandable? Do you know of any case where something like this has been defeated in a court maybe? For the reference: I looked at http://git.claws-mail.org/?p=claws.git;a=blob;f=COPYING;h=bd673f83dcf2a113448b2adfaf8b72cea97fe0d0;hb=58a62e07e425e957a5f3ae53d51e60b3a103fd20 It doesn't say files are GPLv3 or later, so I'd interpret this as "GPLv3-only"; formally, COPYING is a modification of the GPLv3, which is forbidden. There are also other practical concerns: let us imagine that the files are copied to another project where the texts of licenses (for different files) are GPL, LGPL, MIT and a few more, and COPYING is Apache 2.0; the context would be lost, unlike if you put the notices as the GPL recommends. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?13205> _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.gnu.org/
