Re: Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+

Miles Bader wrote:
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[email protected]> writes:
>   
>>  > Sorry for the mess but, whatcha gonna do?
>>
>> Is there a mess?  Legally, it's perfectly clear that it's GPLv2-only.
>>     
>
> The issue, AFAICS is simply that some people actually _intend_ to follow
> "FSF practice" and make their files GPLVx+, but don't realize they need
> to say this.  So it would generally help to reduce confusion to use an
> explicit statement in each file, even in case where it's technically
> redundant.
>
> -Miles
>
>   

The mess from my part is just paperwork.   I'm happy with any of /my/ code
under v2 or v3 (and, indeed, slightly prefer v3 for reasons not 
important here).

So flip any files you like *EXCEPT DON'T* unless you sort out who the
copyright-significant contributors are to the various files and get them to
agree to the change too -- which is, what I gather, Andy is reporting 
that the FSF
is doing.

It's a slight mess.   A bunch of tedious shuffling and permissions 
gathering that,
ideally, ought not to have been an issue at this late date.

(I still think it's a pretty *minor* mess but, it is a mess.)

-t