file headers

[Erik Bågfors]

2006/2/24, Jan Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz>:
> 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.
>

I'm not an expert on this but I belive...

1) The "This software is under GPL v2 or later" means that I as a user
can choose to use it at GPL v3 whenever I feel like it
2) canonical cannot change the licence in any way unless I as a
copyright owner gives them my permission..

/Erik