file headers

[Jan Hudec]

On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 16:06:47 -0600, John A Meinel wrote:
> Jan Hudec wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 15:32:20 -0600, John A Meinel wrote:
> >> Erik Bågfors wrote:
> >>> 2006/2/24, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net>:
> >>>> Lets talk about how the top of a source file should look, so we can all
> >>>> agree that we've agreed :).
> >>>>
> >>>> # Copyright (C) 2006 by Canonical Ltd
> >>> Should all source be copyright to Canonical, does that mean that if we
> >>> have contributed anything, we have to sign copyright over?
> >>>
> >>> /Erik
> >> I would like to hear what Canonical has to say about this.
> >>
> >> I realize it is easier if one entity owns all of the copyrights, not to
> >> say people don't own their own work, just that more than one group can
> >> have the right to copy. Having a unified group own everything means that
> >> if there were ever a need to change the license (like the upcoming
> >> possible move to GPL v3), it is nearly impossible without having a
> >> unified group.
> > 
> > As for move to GPL v3, bzr is licenced as 'GPL v2 or, at your option, any
> > later version'. Therefore I think (IANAL) anyone can change it to GPL v3 or,
> > at your option, any later version' in any particular copy and it will then
> > apply to all versions derived from that copy (but not to versions derived
> > from earlier copies, which it won't anyway, since you can't change the
> > licensing retroactively).
> > 
> >> I suppose that might be one reason to keep Authors, though. Since it is
> >> kind of a "and these people have rights to this code too."
> > 
> > For one think I vaguely recall GPL actually requires it (though I am not
> > going to look it up now - maybe it's FSF or some guidelines to require that).
> > 
> 
> I'm sure GPL doesn't require it, because the Linux kernel is GPL v2
> only, and everyone owns their own code. Which is why the kernel will
> have little to no chance of ever becoming v3.

I refered to the list of authors here.

> I do believe it is an FSF guideline, because it vastly simplifies future
> licensing. Imagine someone wrote a large portion of the codebase
> (Martin), and then decided to go into the peace corps, and not be
> available for a couple of years. And in the meantime, the GPL v2 broke
> down in the court system, for some weird loophole.
> 
> Anyway, I think it is a good guideline. I would just like to hear
> Canonical's stance. (I would be more comfortable giving copyright to FSF
> than Canonical, but I'm okay with Canonical having it). But I do think
> Canonical is more likely to turn something closed source than FSF would
> be. Doesn't mean it is likely, just more likely than the FSF.

They won't be able to retoractively re-license anything anyway and the 'or,
at your option, any later version' gives Canonical the right to switch the
license at any particular revision to newer GPL.

-- 
						 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060224/13bce724/attachment.pgp