This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFH: GPLv3
> At the very least, the file headers are a clear representation as to
> what license the file is under, and IMO a reasonable person would expect
> to be able to rely on such a representation.
Well, all I can say to this is that (with my AdaCore hat on) I had a discussion
with somebody in the purchasing department of a major US defense contractor
last week who seemed like a quite reasonable person to me and quite rightly
was *not* willing to rely on any such "representation" in the file. I think
I was, however, able to point her to something that she *could* rely on.
These sorts of discussions happen quite often and are one of the main
barriers towards commercial acceptance of GPL software.
> And, regardless of whether one accepts that argument, if I were to pull
> a file with a GPLv2 header out of a "GPLv3-licensed" svn and give an
> exact copy of it to my friend, I would have to remember to tell her that
> the file isn't licensed under what it says it's licensed under. That's
> also not good.
Yes, but it's precisely because you might have done that that people are not
willing to just rely on statements in files.
> Thus, I think it's reasonably critical that _all_ file headers be
> updated, quickly, to match the state of intended license for the files
> that include them.
I don't think you'll get any disagreement on that statement, but that doesn't
mean that such an update has any *legal* significance.