www/licenses gpl-faq.html

[Richard M. Stallman]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Richard M. Stallman <rms>       16/01/21 00:21:46

Modified files:
        licenses       : gpl-faq.html 

Log message:
        (LicenseCopyOnly): Clarify; say why briefly notice in each source file.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/gpl-faq.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.213&r2=1.214

Patches:
Index: gpl-faq.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/gpl-faq.html,v
retrieving revision 1.213
retrieving revision 1.214
diff -u -b -r1.213 -r1.214
--- gpl-faq.html        13 Jul 2015 15:43:42 -0000      1.213
+++ gpl-faq.html        21 Jan 2016 00:21:44 -0000      1.214
@@ -1061,8 +1061,14 @@
 just a subroutine which is never called from anywhere else.  The
 resemblance is not perfect: lawyers and courts might apply common
 sense and conclude that you must have put the copy of the GNU GPL
-there because you wanted to license the code that way.  But why leave
-any uncertainty?</p>
+there because you wanted to license the code that way.  Or they might
+not.  Why leave an uncertainty?</p>
+
+<p>This statement should be in each source file.  A clear statement in
+the program's README file is legally sufficient <em>as long as that
+accompanies the code</em>, but it is easy for them to get separated.
+Why take a risk of <a href="#NoticeInSourceFile">uncertainty about
+your code's license</a>?</p>
 
 <p>This has nothing to do with the specifics of the GNU GPL.
 It is true for any free license.</p></dd>
@@ -3833,7 +3839,7 @@
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2015/07/13 15:43:42 $
+$Date: 2016/01/21 00:21:44 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>