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

[Sam Geeraerts]

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.