On 09 Oct 2006, at 08:02, Gary Feldman wrote:
From a legal perspective, this seems wrong. The implication is that the license only applies to the packaged bundles, and not to source code downloaded directly from CVS. This wouldn't be an issue if each file had a copyright notice and a reference to the license, which is the best solution. In the absence of such notices, the omission of the license from the CVS package directory seems penny wise and pound foolish. (The whole issue of copyright ownership is another can of worms. I suggest checking the FAQ on why FSF requires that copyright ownership be transferred to them for their projects, at http://www.gnu.org/ licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCAssignCopyright. Drupal should be doing the same.)
Also, we had this discussion several times before. No need to discuss this over and over again. Check the archives. Thanks. -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/