On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:02:53AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> writes: > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 05:35:47PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> As part of the XML conversion, I noticed the GPL notices on the three > >> documents released under the GPL were the older form that had an FSF > >> street address. I updated them to the current recommended form, > >> including switching to all-caps for the warranty disclaimer in the > >> recommended way (sometimes weird things matter for legal notices, so > >> may as well not get creative). > > > Yes, indeed they do. > > > I was under the impression, though, that the address form is the > > preferred form for version 2 of the license, whereas the website form is > > the preferred one for version 3 of it. > > > I might be wrong, though. > > The address form is the recommended form in the text of the GPLv2, but I'm > 95% sure that's only because the FSF haven't changed anything at all about > the GPLv2 since the GPLv3 was released. Since the address information is > effectively contact information for the FSF, I wouldn't think it would be > license-specific; if they (and, more importantly, their lawyers) are now > comfortable with a URL, I think it makes sense to just go ahead and follow > the GPLv3 license notice form.
Sure. My thinking always went something like, the GPLv3 has language that allows a person redistributing the covered work to point to the source on a network server (if they haven't made modifications), rather than to have to offer it to anyone. In that light, it might make a difference according to the license itself. IANAL though, and I haven't actually ever read the GPLv3 in much detail. I could be wrong. > Keeping the address also runs the risk of the address becoming out of > date, which has already happened once in the past. So this is a bit more > future-proof. There's that too, yes. -- Help me, off-by-one kenobi. You're my only nought.
