El mié, 12-03-2008 a las 06:55 +0100, crap0101 escribió: > >That is the better case, the others i found is that they have > no >licence > >at all. > > > Same week ago, i'd wrote to the FSF for clarification about it. If some > files (and there are many files like that) had no licence, we can assume > is under GPL V2, like the kernel itself. Is the same for the files > reporting "GNU GPL" only. > > for the FSF's answer, see: > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-users/2008-02/msg00169.html > Thanks! :D
_______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
