Kevin Brubeck Unhammer writes: > Should there be a policy for new data? Like GPLv2-or-later or > GPLv3-or-later. (I think having anything be GPLvN-only could lead to > trouble, but I don't know if people have strong feelings on this.)
More importantly, as a packager I would like to see a policy of including a copyright statement, including author names and years, in each copyrightable source file. (See the section of the GPL marked "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs", but this applies to any license). In my opinion, files without such a copyright statement are close enough to "all rights reserved" in modern copyright law that they should be avoided by open source projects. (IANAL, etc.) A big advantage is that it makes it clear whether the "or any later version" clause applies. If the only license information is a copy of the GPL in COPYING, that only shows that the author *may* choose to use this clause; it does not specify whether he actually does. Hard to maintain? Not as much as you might think, and it is much easier for someone who wants to check licensing compared to having to dig through Subversion history. And if relicensing ever occurs, it is so much simpler if this practice has been followed from the start. -- Anthony J. Bentley ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
