Re: GPL and LGPL not acceptable for Fedora!

[Simo Sorce <ssorce redhat com>]

On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 09:30 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:22:30 -0400
> Simo Sorce <ssorce redhat com> wrote:
> 
> > I think this is wrong, I am sorry I didn't catch it before, but if
> > COPYING is not just a mere copy of the GPL license as published by the
> > FSF, but it is actually an obviously edited file which express the
> > intention of the Author, it do matter by all means, and it express the
> > license you should use.
> > Of course conflicts with the license in single source files have to be
> > resolved, but if source files lack any mention of the license version
> > they are under, what matter is what's in COPYING. IMO IANAL
> 
> But what if the file isn't modified, and is obviously a verbatim copy
> from the webpage?

It depends on the case imo.

This would me my interpretation:

1. COPYING verbatim copied, source specify version: source wins
2. COPYING verbatim copied, source does not specify anything: COPYING
wins
3. COPYING verbatim copied, source lack only the version: IMO best
course is to contact the authors, but I guess here Spot reasoning is the
best we can do == any version

4. COPYING modified, source specify version: check for conflicts, more
restrictive wins (also a good idea is to contact the authors to
recompose the conflicts)
5. COPYING modified, source does not specify anything: COPYING wins
6. COPYING modified, source lack only the version: COPYING wins

Simo.