Christian Stimming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * In addition to this, contributions by the following devs are licensed under > GNU GPL, Version 2, "or (at your option) any later version": cstim, ..., and > all source code files that contain this clause.
I prefer the license to be attached to the file; at least as a level of indirection. E.g., the file could just say "Licensed under GPLv2, OpenSSL exception (see LICENSE)". I don't think it's as good to have an "indexing" license file that described all the individual source files, or tried to create "classes" by contributor. > Also (or alternatively), couldn't we also say "All contributions before [some > date in the past] are licensed under GPLv2 or any later version"? When > thinking about the license on a per-contribution basis, I think the most > precise wording could include the fact that you used to contribute code under > GPLv2 or later, but then changed your mind at [some date in the past] and > everything since then is GPLv2-only? I'm not sure to what end. The VC history contains this information, to some degree, as well. > Also, I think I'd be interested to license my contributions under (brand-new) > GPLv3 in addition to the common GPLv2 license. I think this could be added in > the LICENSE file by stating something like "In addition to this, > contributions by ..., cstim, ... are licensed under GPLv3 as well". Should > something like this rather be avoided, or would that be fine? What do the > others plan so far? I think that sounds fine; I'd still modify the text of the files individually, as I said above. I've not had time to review the GPLv3 myself, yet. -- ...jsled http://asynchronous.org/ - a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpqbhQnn4Xv3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
