Re: [gNewSense-users] Linus' statement about copyright

[Matthew Flaschen]

Matthew J. Fisher wrote:
> This implies that any kernel files, in which Linus and other authors
> assert copyright without specifying a license, really are covered under
> the GPLv2 as stated in the COPYING file. Anything else would be
> illogical.

> Also, at Sam mentioned a few weeks ago, copyright always applies --
> whether or not it is asserted. So this is not much of a special case.

I agree.

> Still, people ARE sometimes illogical. It wouldn't hurt to document
> these buglets, and let RMS see if he can obtain confirmation that the
> files are free.

I don't see them as bugs or even buglets.  But there's certainly no harm
in asking authors to add an explicit note about the license to each file
(it's just copy/paste).

Matt Flaschen