>>>> Andreas Roehler <andreas.roehler(a)online.de>
Andreas> Really? I.e. they wrote: but _not_ any later version of GPL?
Andreas> Does it make sense?
They don't have to specify what licenses that doesn't apply, that list
would be long. Only the license that does apply needs to be specified
and if that says GPLv2 then that is so. Files with this type of
copyright need to be relicensed by the copyright holder or if that
isn't possible they need to be replaced.
Andreas> What a kind of misuse of code might happen? Eating the paper,
Andreas> if its printed somewhere. IMHO people may misuse computers
Andreas> and probably do. GPL can't hinder that.
Well the misuse is that the code is used in a way that the license
Andreas> Anyway, didn't want to make you upset. Just wanted to bring
Andreas> some momentum to the issue.
No problem. It is good to discuss it but I'm afraid that there are
probably no shortcuts here. So to get some momentum IMHO the proper
thing is to dive in, find weak spots and try to find out what need to
be done about them. That has to be done for each file, one by one, and
Unfortunately we haven't found any good way to do this in a
collaborate way yet.
XEmacs-Beta mailing list