[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [gNewSense-users] Copyright, but no license: Free or not?

From: Matthew J. Fisher
Subject: Re: [gNewSense-users] Copyright, but no license: Free or not?
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:06:20 -0500

On Sat, 2008-11-29 at 14:42 -0500, Richard M Stallman wrote:
> Unless there is some clear basis to argue that a free license applies
> to these files, they are non-free.
> I would expect that the lack of a license notice is unintentional and
> that the developers of these files will add a license notice when they
> see a bug report about this.

Does this imply a need to change the flowchart and script for kernel
freedom verification? They don't appear to provide any guidance for the
"Copyright, but no license" scenario.

In the section I've adopted (arch/x86), 1/3 of all files are turning out
to be in this condition. Granted, a good number are copyright Linus
Torvalds. We might be able to assume (or verify with a single query)
that his intention was to issue them all under GPLv2.

That still leaves a lot of other copyright holders whose intentions
would need to be verified. 

Up to this point it looks like kfv volunteers have marked such files as
"No license, so assumed to be GPLv2". Now we may have to report them as
freedom bugs -- and re-check sections which were previously certified

I'll wait a reality check before starting to file bug reports.

[Note: I forgot to cc the list on this yesterday. RMS has already
replied, but I'm interested in getting the sense of the list. Will
forward his reply in a moment.]

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]