[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [wdiff-bugs] Re: wdiff (was: Re: gnulib-cache.m4 readability)

From: Karl Berry
Subject: Re: [wdiff-bugs] Re: wdiff (was: Re: gnulib-cache.m4 readability)
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:57:37 -0500

Hi Denver,

    It is unclear to me whether an a GNU package must be FSF-copyrighted.

Definitely not.  There are many GNU packages not copyright by the FSF.
I recall seeing a discussion of this somewhere but can't find it now.
Isn't that always the way.  Another thing to update in maintain.texi ...

In the case of wdiff, though, I believe it *is* copyright FSF.  I
checked copyright.list (failed to do that yesterday), and Francois
assigned it back in 1993.  There are no other assignments for wdiff.

    It seems that it is preferred that GNU packages are FSF-copyrighted
    since it makes things like switching to GPLv3 easier, 

The most important reason for a package to be copyright FSF is so the
FSF can enforce the GPL.

(I don't know that it makes upgrading to GPLv3 any easier, exactly.)
    but it would be nice to know in case I have trouble getting
    copyright assignments whether such a thing is needed.

The goal is for all contributors of legally significant changes to have
signed papers, yes.  I guess either there were no other contributors or
Francois did not get papers for them :(.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]