[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Sam Geeraerts
Subject: Re: [gNewSense-users] Re: Copyright, but no license: Free or not?
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 18:11:05 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird (X11/20080509)

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:

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?

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.

reply via email to

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