Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included
This is surely offtopic for -policy by now. Reply-to: set to -legal.
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 09:19:30AM -0500, Brian Mays wrote:
> xtifr@dsp.net (Chris Waters) wrote:
> > 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.
Personally, I doubt that the .dsc would be copyrightable: it doesn't
seem likely to have any novel component in and of itself.
OTOH, Packages files contain sometimes significant bits of prose, at
least sometimes cut and pasted from the packages they apply too. It's
quite possible that some of the descriptions at least come under the
GPL. It's also possible that the Packages file is copyrightable in and
of itself as a combined work. Probably no one could be bothered caring
though.
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. These
could quite legitimately go in the doc/ directory on the ftp site, IMO,
without getting in anyone's way at all.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
-- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001
Reply to: