mharris@opensourceadvocate.org said:
> I've found a few inconsistencies with the wording of some license
> statements refering to "GNU public license" and similar, and have
> reworded them properly to "GNU General Public License".
If we're referring to it by name, we probably ought to call it the
'GNU General Public License' (sic). You've used the British spelling of
Licence.
--- drivers/mtd/nftl.c 2000/09/12 01:27:22 1.40
+++ drivers/mtd/nftl.c 2000/10/16 11:39:57 1.43
@@ -5,10 +5,10 @@
/* $Id: nftl.c,v 1.36 2000/07/13 14:14:20 dwmw2 Exp $ */
/*
- The contents of this file are distributed under the GNU Public
- Licence version 2 ("GPL"). The legal note below refers only to the
- _use_ of the code in some jurisdictions, and does not in any way
- affect the copying, distribution and modification of this code,
+ The contents of this file are distributed under the GNU General
+ Public License version 2 ("GPL"). The legal note below refers only
+ to the _use_ of the code in some jurisdictions, and does not in any
+ way affect the copying, distribution and modification of this code,
which is permitted under the terms of the GPL.
Section 0 of the GPL says:
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@
being under GPL.
In fact the ISDN case is worse than this, because modification of
- the code automatically invalidates its approval. Modificiation,
+ the code automatically invalidates its approval. Modification,
unlike usage, _is_ one of the rights which is protected by the
GPL. Happily, the law in those places where approval is required
doesn't actually prevent you from modifying the code - it's just
-- dwmw2- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 23 2000 - 21:00:08 EST