Re: GPL v3 survey site

Mats Lidell writes: No. You can't change the license without permission of the author. We need to look at the files and see whether we can be reasonably sure that the authors intended GPLvN or later, for various values of N, and/or permissive, GPL-compatible licenses. Some of our authors are dead for example, so in cases like that we have to guess about what heirs or assignees might think. We also need to think about the documentation screwage (eg, the invariant GPLv1 mess). No, that is not a problem. As long as all files have a GPLv3-compatible license, they can be in a distribution we distribute under GPLv3. The FSF doesn't like that, but that's a strategic issue, not a legal one. GNU Emacs has several files with non-GPL license notices as a courtesy to authors who have requested that, I believe, and as Jerry points out some GNU files are GPLv1 or later still. The problem is that we cannot distribute files that are not GPLv3 compatible in a GPLv3 distribution. No. If we don't have a license, we can't distribute it anyway. We are assuming that we do have a license already. This is just a good opportunity to straighten things out. The question is what permission notice do we put there? You can do anything you want in a private repository, including inserting a copy of the Windows kernel in a comment in the header. The GPL doesn't care. The easiest way to handle it is for somebody to volunteer to change permission notices in a private repo until it's done. The volunteer doesn't even have to wait, they can start changing notices now (as long as there is no distribution from that repo). _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta