From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mhw@netris.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add dcfldd Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 23:34:27 -0400 Message-ID: <877g2dnjuk.fsf@netris.org> References: <53EA2DCC.9020304@scorpionrock.com> <87vbpxenrv.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53940) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XHPKj-0004TC-5Z for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 23:34:48 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XHPKb-00039k-5v for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 23:34:40 -0400 Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:47946) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XHPKb-00039g-1t for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 23:34:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87vbpxenrv.fsf@gmail.com> (Eric Bavier's message of "Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:22:12 -0500") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Eric Bavier Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, "Bishmer J. Sekaran" Eric Bavier writes: > Bishmer J. Sekaran writes: > >> re: Licensing, my impression was that "gpl2+" only applies if the >> authors specifically invoke "any later version" when they distribute the >> software, per clause 9 of the GPL 2 > > [...] > >> Upstream lists the project as: >> "License >> GNU General Public License version 2.0 (GPLv2)" >> http://sourceforge.net/projects/dcfldd/ >> >> Am I in error? > > In some cases the "or later" clause is only mentioned in the source file > headers. I see, from a brief glance at the source, that this is the > case for dcfldd. I believe the copyright notices in the source files are ultimately what determines the license. If the source files include copyright notices with the "any later version" language, then the license is in fact gpl2+. This is also my expectation given that 'dcfldd' was forked from GNU dd, which was presumably covered by gpl2+ at the time of the fork. Thanks! Mark