Follow-up Comment #10, task #13205 (project administration): Hi Pavel,
> Hello, Ricardo! > > AFAIK default GPL usage is always 'or later' unless specifically > > removed, > > The GPL says > > Now, "or any later version" is obviously not present in > > The GPL version is implicitly defined by the text of COPYING, so > it's GPLv3-only; someone might claim that it's GPLv-any, but it's > a stronger statement IMHO. > > but there's no problem in clarifying that in the header. > > See below. > >> formally, COPYING is a modification of the GPLv3, which is > >> forbidden. > > > > That's simply not true, the license in COPYING is bit by bit the > > content of http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.txt > > > > It's pretty clear where the license starts, > > You may be right here. "may be"? :) > > and the GPL howto¹ itself says > > You may have noticed that the GPL howto says > using the GPL unconditionally involves adding the copyright > notices and statement of copying permission to all sources. Yep, that's the reason I plan to change the two lines to include that. > > “In GNU programs the license is usually in a file called COPYING.” > > not that the COPYING file must contain only the license. > > In GNU programs every source file should contain copyright and > licensing notices as per [0] and [1], so no additional text > in COPYING is ever needed. > [0] https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices.html > [1] > https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Documentation.html If you read it closely it says 'nontrivial' source file. These already have the text recommended by GPL. Since the meaning of nontrivial can be quite controversial I think that the reduced pointer is more than enough for auxiliary files, see below. > >> There are also other practical concerns: let us imagine that the > >> files are copied to another project where the texts of licenses > >> (for different files) are GPL, LGPL, MIT and a few more, and > >> COPYING is Apache 2.0; the context would be lost, unlike if you > >> put the notices as the GPL recommends. > > > > There's no way you can defend against bad copying practices: let's > > imagine only the code is copied and not the comments, for example. > > There is no way to defend against all of them; however, there are > ways to defend against some of them. also, plain copying of files is > hardly a bad practice: if the authors use the methods the GPL > recommends, there is absolutely nothing wrong. > For the original authors, it's virtually as easy to put such full > notices in their sources as the short reference, but the full notices > make it essentially easier to re-use the code for other people. A reduced version can be equally valid for trivial files, which is not what I achieved with my first attempt. But given your feedback I think this version # Copyright 1999-2014 the Claws Mail team. # This file is part of Claws Mail package, and distributed under the # terms of the General Public License version 3 (or later). # See COPYING file for license details. contains all required elements. > > Anyway when copying our two-line pointer is pretty clear where the > > file came: > > > > # This file is part of Claws Mail package. > > # See COPYING file for license details. > > > > Even if this appear in a source file of a Foobar project, I think > > everybody can understand the license referred there is in the > > COPYING file of Claws Mail package, not in other random COPYING > > files. > > Sure, but Claws Mail package may be unavailable at that point. So, author of Foobar copied a Makefile.am from last copy of Claws Mail available in the Universe and then shredded it! Really? :) _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?13205> _______________________________________________ Mensaje enviado vía/por Savannah http://savannah.gnu.org/
