On 01/18/2014 11:12 AM, Paul Menzel wrote:
"This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as published * by the Free Software Foundation, incorporated herein by reference." and then we can avoid this silly and unending address discussion.(Note that Ron’s text disallows later versions of the GPL, which is probably a mistake, which should be corrected.)
Whether code is licensed under GPLv2 or GPLv2+ is up to the individual contributor.
It would be great if some “authority” could comment or some lawyer could chime in, so that the texts in the repository do not become a mess as some of Alex’ patch sets already have been committed.
The only mess is the long headers that include the address of the FSF.
<ianal>
<propietary_developer>: "Judge, I wrote to the address indicated in the header to get the full text, but I received no reply. Since we could not obtain the text of the license, we were not aware what conditions we had to comply to. How can this be a breach of contract since we never received the contract in the first place? " <Judge>: "Judgment for the defendant! [hammer strike]"
</ianal>
Alex