From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from colo.lackof.org (colo.lackof.org [198.49.126.79]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 123C64852 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:07:45 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:07:43 -0700 From: Grant Grundler To: Joel Soete Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] audit for copyright/license Message-ID: <20031222020743.GD26083@colo.lackof.org> References: <20031221041802.GB12969@colo.lackof.org> <3FE5E4E6.2090208@tiscali.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3FE5E4E6.2090208@tiscali.be> Cc: parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 06:22:30PM +0000, Joel Soete wrote: > in COPYING (i.e. GNU GPL version 2) under section "How to Apply These Terms > to Your New Programs" > stand what I would trust being the standard formula you are loocking for: Thanks for digging that up - that's in fact what I was looking for. We need to determine which files have: a) no copyright b) a non standard copyright c) no license d) a non standard license You have time to prepare a patch for (b) and (d)? Preferably seperate patches. If someone prepared a precise list of (a) and (c) I could start determining who owns (a) for each file and add the appropriate copyright. I or willy could ask for (c) get formal permission to use GPL if it's not part of the current team. thanks, grant