GPL version 1, and "Copyright (c) ...."
Hi again.
I've just adopted 'oo-browser' which is licensed as follows:
(source file BR-COPY)
===========================================================================
* Copyright
===========================================================================
The following copyright applies to the OO-Browser software.
Copyright (C) 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 BeOpen.com and the Free Software Foundation, Inc.
The OO-Browser is available for use, modification, and distribution under the
terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) Version 1 as published by the
Free Software Foundation, with all rights and responsibilities thereof. See
the GNU General Public License for more details. If you need a copy, write
to the Free Software Foundation, 675 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA
02139 USA.
The OO-Browser is offered in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY
WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.
===========================================================================
There is no copy of GPL Version 1 included with the source. The other
files that mention copyright refer to 'BR-COPY' for their copyright
and distribution license (with one exception, which I'll get to in Q2
below).
Q1: Is it OK for us to distribute oo-browser with the above text in
the 'copyright' file, without also distributing a copy of GPL
version 1?
Q1.1: If not, do you know where I can find a copy? It's not obvious
at gnu.org.
Q2.: There is *one* file in the source package that contains this
(verbatim):
"Copyright (c) ....\n\nMore legal stuff, stuff, stuff and stuff...."
Fortunately, that file is not used to build the debian binary package,
but (unless I alter the upstream source package) we'll still be
distributing it (in fact we have been distributing it since September
1999) in the source package. What(if anything) should I do about
that?
I have written to the upstream author, but (so far) he has not
replied.
Thanks for your advice.
Reply to: