Can GPLv3 packages be synced?

[Adrian Aichner]

Mats Lidell <matsl at xemacs.org> writes:

>>>>>> Stephen wrote:
>
> Stephen> AFAIK all licenses that can be promoted to GPLv2 can also be
> Stephen> promoted to GPLv3.  I don't think there's anything to worry
> Stephen> about except files that say they are GPLv2 and not later.
>
> OK. I hacked a script that tries to find out what license a file is
> under by looking for the "GNU General Public License as published ..."
> string in the top of the files.
>
> I also assumed that files with the extension png, xbm, and xpm can't
> be examined this way so they are ignored.
>
> Now the output is rather long so I hesitate to post it to the list
> today but wait for feedback. Could this kind of script be useful?

I think so.

>
> In summary the output from the script reveals that there are 599 files
> left that my script does not find the GPL text. These files needs to
> be analysed one way or the other.

Would be interesting to know what's behind these 599 files.

One or the other files from me might lack proper copyright text
(e.g. the build package).

Why don't you publish or checkin your script somewhere so others can
test it as well.

You already have
xemacs-builds/matsl
under
cvs.xemacs.org:/pack/xemacscvs

Why don't you put it there somewhere for starters?

Adrian

>
> On the other hand the script finds 932 files that does contain the
> GPLv2 text.
>
> Yours

-- 
Adrian Aichner
 mailto:adrian at xemacs.org
 http://www.xemacs.org/