file headers

[James Blackwell]

On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 11:21:34PM +0100, Jan Hudec wrote:
> > 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.

Absolutely true. It would also have the power to license newer versions of
the work as "GPLv3 or later" instead of "GPLv2 or later".

-- 
My home page:   <a href="http://jblack.linuxguru.net">James Blackwell</a>
Gnupg 06357400  F-print AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060224/ec07f51c/attachment.pgp