Matthew Fisher wrote:
About the files in the kernel, which contain copyright statements but no
license information -- I'm persuaded by Sam Geeraert's rationale for not
worrying about them:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-users/2008-12/msg00027.html
As he says, things which are clearly proprietary would be of higher
priority. That said, it might be worthwhile to come back to this issue
later. That would be easier if we flagged the files now.
Does anyone with Lisp skills feel like adding a new license type option
to the KFV script for "Copyright, but no license, assumed to be GPLv2."?
Or would anyone object if I made that change?
http://wiki.gnewsense.org/Kernel/Kfv-script
I don't think its different enough from the current "No license, so
assumed to be GPLv2" to make the change. Everything you write is
protected by copyright by default, even if you don't make that explicit
with a copyright statement.
I was wondering if you heard any more opinions on the issue? Right now
we have two contradicting opinions from the FSF and not much else to go
on. How about bringing it up on the Linux mailing list?
I think it's also a good idea to open a bug report about this to keep it
on our radar.
_______________________________________________
gNewSense-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
