> > At the very least, the file headers are a clear representation as to > > what license the file is under, and IMO a reasonable person would expect > > to be able to rely on such a representation. > > Actually, this is a good point. While the FSF may declare that all > patches after Aug 1 are GPLv3, unless they take affirmative action > to assert the copyright and license, courts may determine that they > waive rights under these. Especially if a reasonable person would > expect copyright statements to be correct.
I don't know if the above is true or not (it's not as clear as you think and the result could well depend on the jurisdiction), but don't see why we need to debate it since the FSF is certainly planning to take the "affirmative action" you refer to!
