Re: COPYING tabs vs whitespaces

On 8.2.2016 18:28, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Petr Stodulka [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On 4.2.2016 20:15, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

Petr Stodulka [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

I found that license file COPYING is different as compared with
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt If I pass over with
Linus's preamble, change is only about whitespaces - tabs
vs. space.  Probably it's minor non-essential change, but some
projects do this change, so rather I ask about that.

Interesting.  I cannot quite connect "some projects do this change"
and "so rather I ask".  Are you asking why this project changed it?

Nope. I apologize for my czenglish. It means: From my colleagues I hear,
that some projects had same differences (tabs vs. spaces) in their copy
of the license file and they make it later equivalent with the one in
gnu.org.

I'd guess that these projects (among which Linux kernel still has
these indentation the same as the copy we have) and we independently
obtained the COPYING file from GNU in some past, and back then the
copy at GNU was indented that way--which later was changed.

The Wayback Machine supports this theory.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070713225446/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt

i.e. the FSF copy back in 2007-07 indented these section headers
with tabs, so those projects that obtained this copy would have
their sections indented with tabs.

At 703601d6 (Update COPYING with GPLv2 with new FSF address,
2010-01-15), we did a fresh update directly from the URL you cited
above to primarily replace the addresses of the FSF office.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100105100239/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt

matches what we use (minus Linus's preamble, of course).

The file before that change was what Linus copied from Linux kernel
project.  The kernel project did their equivalent change at their
b3358a11 ([PATCH] update FSF address in COPYING, 2005-09-10), and
the log message says http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt was used.

The Wayback Machine agrees.

https://web.archive.org/web/20050901115237/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt

i.e. the FSF copy back in 2005-09 matches what the kernel uses
(again, minus Linus's preamble).

I have expected that license was copied correctly in the past from gnu.org,
when same differences are in various projects. I just point out on another change.

Thank You for tip about web.archive.org - I really don't know about that web
and it can be useful.

quoted

So I ask rather here / point out this difference, if you know
about that or you want to have same one.

So the answers are:

 - No, I didn't personally know about the differences, and I suspect
   nobody particularly cared.

 - Not really, unless the difference has more substance.  For an
   example of an update with substance, the update we did in 2010
   had not just the FSF address change but also updated the fully
   spelled name of LGPL from Library to Lesser.

Thank You for reponse.

You may want to bug the kernel folks to update their copy; they
still spell it as Library General Public License.

Everyone can do that. I believe that someone report it already or at least
constult it. I write about this here because I should do that. When You
know about this difference in license in kernel, I believe that they know
it too and they decide it is ok.

Regards,
Petr