On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:30:52PM +0200, Evgeni Golov wrote: > On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:59:07 +0200 Sylvain Beucler wrote: > > Maybe I missed something, but apparently the latest GNUJump is GPLv3+: > > Well, that's what is written on the homepage and in the COPYING file in > the tarball, but the headers of most source files still say GPL-2+ > (only two files explicitly list v3+). > > Bas, what do you think? I think the headers are supposed to be only informative, and to make sure that there is no doubt about the absense of warrenty (at least that's the reason the license itself gives for including it in every source file). That would mean in this case, that they are wrong and the license really is GPL-3+ for all files. Even if I am wrong about this, and only those two files are GPL-3+, it doesn't change much. Since GPL-2+ is compatible with GPL-3+, but not the other way around, having two files not licensed as v2 means that the combination cannot be distributed as v2 either. So the license for the binary package must be (at least) GPL-3+. Most source files may then be used as GPL-2+, as long as they are not combined with GPL-3+ files. I think it's best to ask upstream for a clarification about the license of the separate source files. I'll mail upstream about this. Whatever the situation is, it must be documented in the copyright file, of course. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature