David Kastrup wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes:

>> Any idea how this could be made more clear?  E.g., maybe we should
>> bite the bullet and add a line to all source files that don't already
>> state a license:
>>      /*
>>       * License: GPLv2.  See COPYING for details.
>>       */
> Probably somewhat more verbose like "This file may be distributed under
> the conditions of the GPLv2.  See the file COPYING for details".
> I think there are boilerplate texts for that.

All else being equal, longer is worse.

> Whatever the exact wording, that would be the cleanest way I think.  The
> respective Documentation/SubmittingPatches text looks like it is quoted
> from somewhere else, so adapting it to the realities of files without
> clear copyright statement seems less straightforward.

Hm, the wording comes from the Linux kernel project, where it's also
pretty normal not to have a license notice in every file (and where
the default license is also GPLv2).

Is the problem the phrase "indicated in the file", or is the problem
e.g. the lack of a pointer to

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to