incorrect copyright notice in 9 of 10 files

Bug #984247 reported by sash-kan
12
This bug affects 2 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
awsome
Medium
Jelmer Vernooij

Bug Description

9 of 10 files, which includes copyright notice, contains incorrect text;
"published by the Free Software Foundation, version 3."

it must be:
"published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."

see text of license in the file COPYING or here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html

Related branches

Revision history for this message
Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer) wrote :

As far as I understand, awsome is meant to be AGPL version 3 only, and not AGPL version 3 or later.

The COPYING file mentions this is possible as well:

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the
Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU Affero General
Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the
option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered
version or of any later version published by the Free Software
Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the
GNU Affero General Public License, you may choose any version ever published
by the Free Software Foundation.

I'll fix up test_live.py, which is the only inconsistent file at the moment.

Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)
Changed in awsome:
status: New → Incomplete
status: Incomplete → Fix Released
assignee: nobody → Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)
importance: Undecided → Medium
Revision history for this message
sash-kan (alex-barakin) wrote :

> As far as I understand, awsome is meant to be AGPL version 3 only, and not AGPL version 3 or later.

i hope you understand that this is a bad idea

Revision history for this message
Tm_T (Jussi Kekkonen) (tmt) wrote :

How that is a bad idea?

Revision history for this message
John A Meinel (jameinel) wrote : Re: [Bug 984247] Re: incorrect copyright notice in 9 of 10 files

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 4/20/2012 1:04 PM, Jussi Kekkonen wrote:
> How that is a bad idea?
>

It is an explicit decision to use APGLv3 and not AGPLv3+, I'm not
specifically responsible for the license chosen, but that was the
decision.

John
=:->

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk+RVuwACgkQJdeBCYSNAAN5JwCcDYfCXUMKJFl/1yya2Q2iNAwd
vaUAnRch/IITy7cgpzjmrZz197aPcE5U
=QFOR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Revision history for this message
sash-kan (alex-barakin) wrote :

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:04:24AM -0000, Jussi Kekkonen wrote:
> How that is a bad idea?

one phrase: possible incompatibility with programs under the new
versions of the license

more phrases: http://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/GnuGplTwoOrLater
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#VersionThreeOrLater

2 John A Meinel (jameinel)
very sad…

--
alexander barakin aka sash-kan | mailto+jid: <email address hidden>
mezon.ru,spb,russia | nic-handle: SASH3-UANIC

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers