Matthew J. Fisher wrote: > This implies that any kernel files, in which Linus and other authors > assert copyright without specifying a license, really are covered under > the GPLv2 as stated in the COPYING file. Anything else would be > illogical.
> Also, at Sam mentioned a few weeks ago, copyright always applies -- > whether or not it is asserted. So this is not much of a special case. I agree. > Still, people ARE sometimes illogical. It wouldn't hurt to document > these buglets, and let RMS see if he can obtain confirmation that the > files are free. I don't see them as bugs or even buglets. But there's certainly no harm in asking authors to add an explicit note about the license to each file (it's just copy/paste). Matt Flaschen _______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
