Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included
- From: Brian Mays <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 09:56:30 -0500
- Message-id: <20001203145631.E9600DF5F@ariel.local.net>
- In-reply-to: Message from Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> of "Mon, 04 Dec 2000 00:43:36 +1000." <20001204004336.B18858@azure.humbug.org.au>
- References: <email@example.com> <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20001202181210.A1084@srh1003> <20001202235125.A11791@starless> <20001203141930.64924DF5F@ariel.local.net> <20001204004336.B18858@azure.humbug.org.au>
Anthony Towns <email@example.com> wrote:
> Personally, I doubt that the .dsc would be copyrightable: it doesn't
> seem likely to have any novel component in and of itself.
Well, I was considering the .dsc file to be part of a copyrightable whole,
not a copyrightable entity in itself. It's not worth worrying about.
> Another thing that it might be sensible for Debian to do, which
> I don't think has been mentioned explicitly would be to provide
> the common licenses (GPL, LGPL, Artistic, MIT, BSD) on the
> archive explicitly, as the FSF does with ftp.gnu.org:/gnu/GPL and
> ftp.gnu.org/gnu/LGPL. ...
A prudent and convenient idea. Why haven't we done this before now?