Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included
xtifr@dsp.net (Chris Waters) wrote:
> If the .deb needs to have one, why doesn't the .diff.gz, which is
> surely also GPL'd?
By the reasoning proposed by some on this list, it should.
> And what exactly *is* the license of a .dsc file? Is it legal for
> someone to distribute a .dsc by itself?
Well, in the case of my packages, where I explicitly state that my
modifications of the source are released under the GPL, then the .dsc
file is GPLed. As to whether it is legal to distribute a .dsc file by
itself, I would hope that common sense would prevail (something that
has been lacking in much of this discussion). Certainly, the file is
intended to be distributed with the tar and diff as one complete set.
Therefore, I wouldn't worry about it.
- Brian
Reply to: