On 03/10/2010 23:13, Mats Lidell wrote:
>>>>> Robin Paterson<scot_paro(a)yahoo.co.uk>
Robin> There are two distinct things here; the copyright notice, and
Robin> the software licence.
Of course. Thanks for clarifying this. I was a bit vague on the naming
Robin> There is no need to provide a copyright notice, as copyright is
Robin> protected automatically
Most, all(?), files in XEmacs does have a copyright notice. What I was
trying to say was that these will be kept intact, no change of year
for the copyright.
Robin> (yes, it's more complicated than this). If you do
Robin> copyright notice then you only need to change the date if the
Robin> content has substantially changed. (substantially changed - how
Robin> much is "substantial"?)
That is what I'm saying - Changing the license is not a substantial
change. No change of year in the copyright notice.
Correct. (Well, unless it
was a small file already).
Robin> Software licence. You want to include a copy of the
Robin> with the distribution - a link is not sufficient. A link is
Robin> nice in addition to the distro copy, but isn't enough on its
A copy is the license is of course included in the XEmacs
distribution. What I'm suggesting is that when we switch to GPLv3 or
later license we should adopt the same wording as in Emacs. Previous
versions said that if you didn't receive a version of the GPL you
should write to the FSF supplying the full address. Now it says "see
which is much shorter and will
possibly not change.
As I said before, so long as a copy is in the distro (which it is),
having a link as well is a bit more 21st century. Personally, I'd have
a snail address too. With my legal head on, I'm considering the
scenario where someone abuses the licence and is looking for excuses for
not having been able to read the licence, or otherwise obtain a copy.
Hope this helps.
XEmacs-Beta mailing list