I've walked throught he various license related files common_copyright_quick.xml common_copyright_opensuse.xml common_copyright_sle.xml common_legal.xml common_gplv2_i.xml common_gfdl_i.xml
in our internal and external repositories and edited them to look more appealing. At least more appealing to me. I am half lawyer half developer, so your milage may vary.
* The full texts of GFDL and GPL now appear exactly as written by the FSF. There were some minor edits, that we are not entitled to do.
* The copyright line of the GFDL boiler plate now says "(C) 2006-2010 Novell Inc. and contributors. All rights reserved." instead of several other forms, none of which honored any non-Novell contributors. (The term 'All rights reserved' is a nice-to-have for layers, but has no factual effect -- it bows to the terms of the GFDL.)
* Call the licenses GPLv2, GFDLv2.1 instead just GPL and GFDL.
Dinar, I also touched some files under */ru/, where I understood the english. Please let me know if I messed up something. Hope not :-)
Am Donnerstag, 22. April 2010 21:00:52 schrieb Juergen Weigert:
- Call the licenses GPLv2, GFDLv2.1 instead just GPL and GFDL.
There is no GFDLv2.1, the latest GFDL is v1.3 afaik?