<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Werner Almesberger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:werner@openmoko.org" target="_blank">werner@openmoko.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>xiangfu wrote:<br>
> /* Smedia Glamo 336x/337x driver<br>
> *<br>
> - - * (C) 2007 by OpenMoko, Inc.<br>
> + * (C) 2008 by OpenMoko, Inc.<br>
> * Author: Harald Welte <<a href="mailto:laforge@openmoko.org" target="_blank">laforge@openmoko.org</a>><br>
<br>
</div>In cases where there is actual content that's been copied (and not just<br>
the copyright notice itself), I would suggest to update copyright<br>
notices by adding the new years or by using a range, e.g.,<br>
<br>
* (C) 2007, 2008 by OpenMoko, Inc.<br>
<br>
* (C) 2007-2008 by OpenMoko, Inc.<br>
<br>
or even<br>
<br>
* (C) 2007, 2009-2010 by OpenMoko, Inc.<br>
<br>
(in case nobody worked on that file in 2008.)<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
- Werner<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br>Also how about the change from GPLv2 to GPLv3? Is all the code going to be GPLv3 now? The license already says "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." which lets people use the code in a GPLv3 application. Changing the license to require a minimum of GPLv3 would (in my opinion, I am NOT a lawyer) prevent someone from using some of this code in a GPLv2 application...<br clear="all">
<br>Is this change to GPLv3 intentional? Not that I am for or against any specific version of the GPL but this seems like a subtle way of changing the licensing terms in a patch whose description is "just change the Copyright year from 2007 to 2008.". Maybe I missed another thread discussing this..?<br>
<br><br>.02$<br>antoine<br><br>-- <br>Antoine Reid<br>
</div>