Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included
Brian Mays <brian@debian.org> writes:
> > 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.
tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) added:
> No, but it most certainly is the intent that if you start
> intentionally distributing binaries of ls you most certainly must give
> copies of the GPL along with them.
Sure. But what's the point here? We're drifting from the original
topic.
If we're going to be so anal about interpreting the GPL, then why
doesn't anyone mention the requirements for distributing the source.
Certainly, by a strict interpretation of the license (along with an
active imagination for dreaming up scenarios whereby a deb package
can end up on the far end of the world, away from anyone or anything
knowledgeable about GNU or GPLed software), we should be including the
GPLed sources in our packages.
<sarcasm>
Since, it is conceivable for someone to end up with a package without
any access to the package's source or any idea how to find the source,
we MUST go out of our way to ensure this doesn't happen. What if we
merge the source with the deb? In that way, the two cannot be separated
by accident. Of course, those users who are foolish enough to run
Debian on a system with limited disk space will whine that including
the sources will take up too much space. Therefore, we can modify dpkg,
so that it can be told not to install the sources -- a feature that is
off by default, since we all know that every sensible person needs the
sources for all of the software on his system.
</sarcasm>
Sorry for that, but some of the arguments that are seriously being
floated in this thread just seem ridiculous to me.
- Brian
Reply to: