On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 12:27:52AM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
The GNU licenses do include an explicit meta-license for verbatim copying. However most license texts do not have this. Despite the lack of that explicit meta-license, we are clearly intended and (usually) required to copy them along with the works they apply to. The copyright format does not explain how such license text files should be documented. Unless they are public domain, which I don't think is correct, the paragraph listing these files is required to include or refer to a (meta-)license text. But there is none that I can point to.
As the saying goes, "the copyright format doesn't require specifying anything that is not required by the common d/copyright requirements". We just always ignored the licenses for the license texts, including the fact that they may be non-free.
-- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature