[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included



"Gustavo Noronha Silva (KoV)" <dockov@zaz.com.br> wrote:

> I think that "complete work" stands for every work that can be used
> in any installed system without missing parts... just like fileutils
> and debhelper. Debian distribution is for me an selection of complete
> works that are all packaged together.

By this definition, the "ls" binary itself is a complete work, and should 
have an entire copy of the GPL built into it (readable perhaps by typing 
"ls --GPL").   Certainly this is not the intent.

For many GPLed sources, the individual files can be pulled out an used 
separately from the rest of the source.  Nevertheless, one copy of the GPL 
suffices for the entire tree.  Why shouldn't one copy of the GPL suffice 
for our entire distribution?

> I think that this discussion about "What GPL says..." is not taking
> us to anywhere... let's ask the one who wrote the license then!?  We
> should ask him to aprove/disaprove the many suggestions we have had
> here.

The terms of a license are determined by what the license *actually* says, 
not by what its author *meant* to say.  "What the GPL says ..." is the key 
point of this debate.

- Brian




Reply to: