Re: Must the entire GPL be included?
First, I'm no lawyer... if your friend wants a real answer that he/she can
act upon, he/she MUST consult one.
As long as the both of you agree to read this, forget it and ask someone
who really knows, read on...
Your friend is comparing the size of the archive when the GPL is included
with its size when the GPL is not...
Maybe a different comparison is useful, suggested by your comment that the
wm he made is the smallest you've seen: why not make a comparison of the
size of his package with the average size of all packages? I think if you
view it this way, including the GPL and lots of documentation doesn't seem
so bad :)
If I were your friend, I would not only include the GPL in the archive, but
I would add the following to the top of each and every source file (including
the make file and all documentation files):
# (a description of what the program does, or the part this file contributes)
# Copyright (c) YYYY by A. Person.
# This software comes with NO WARRANTY WHATSOEVER.
# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
# the Free Software Foundation; version 2 dated June, 1991, or, at your
# option, any LATER version.
# This program is distributed 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.
# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
# along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
# Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
# On Debian GNU/Linux systems, the complete text of the GNU General
# Public License can be found in `/usr/doc/copyright/GPL'.
# I also include the file in this archive, in the file COPYING.