GPLv2 in new files

GPLv2 in new files

[Miles Bader]

I notice that some new files in CVS are using the GPL v2.

I presume that these should be changed to GPL v3; is there any reason
for individuals (i.e., me :-) to _not_ convert them this when noticing
such a file?  [`copyright-update' keeps asking whether I'd like to
convert them...]

Thanks,

-Miles

-- 
Next to fried food, the South has suffered most from oratory.
  			-- Walter Hines Page

Re: GPLv2 in new files

[David Kastrup]

Miles Bader <miles.bader@necel.com> writes:

> I notice that some new files in CVS are using the GPL v2.
>
> I presume that these should be changed to GPL v3; is there any reason
> for individuals (i.e., me :-) to _not_ convert them this when noticing
> such a file?  [`copyright-update' keeps asking whether I'd like to
> convert them...]

There should be no problem if they are "GPLv2 or later".  Actually,
since no material is supposed to be placed into CVS (apart from few
well-known exceptions like MULE) that is not copyright-assigned to the
FSF, making them GPLv3 or later should be possible regardless of what
the files claim to be.

But it might be worth double-checking the assignment status when the
license header appears all too surprising.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: GPLv2 in new files

[Glenn Morris]

Richard Stallman wrote:

> It is not a conflict, but it is a problem, because those files were
> supposed to be uplicensed.

<grumble>

Actually, in 2 of the 3 cases I can see, someone reverted the license
back to v2 or later (without comment, as part of other changes) after
I had changed it to v3; and in the other case it's a new file
installed after the relicensing.

Please pay attention to these issues, people.

</grumble>