Il 17/10/2012 23:50, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto: > I suppose that's the usual assumption when the file doesn't have an > explicit license, as it's the license specified on the LICENSE file. > > The only problem is that the LICENSE file doesn't specify the GPL > version, so it's a bit complicated. Some opinions can be found here: > <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/122665>. > > Unless every single author replies and accepts the adoption of another > license (which I find very unlikely), I plan to submit a patch adding a > GPLv2+ license header.
GPLv2+ should be the default license for files without a heading, except if the history of the file shows that the code came originally from the Linux kernel or another GPLv2-only project/file. Paolo
