Bug#255955: [email@example.com: Re: Accepted mmake 2.2.1-4 (all source)]
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:53:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Well well. I assume of non-serious priority right?
> > I did a random check of tree packages. 2 of them was correct and 1 did
> > not include such source comments (hsftp).
> It depends on the particular case.
> > That he removed GNUGPL.TXT and LICENSE and added COPYING instead
> > to be clear.
> No no, I think you still don't understand.
> Merely distributing a copy of the GPL *means nothing*. What must
> happen is the author must say "this work is distributed under the
> terms of the GPL." It is totally irrelevant what any of the files are
[jeroen@mordor]/tmp/mmake-2.2.1$ cat LICENSE
COPYRIGHT GNUGPL (c) 1998-2001 Jan-Henrik Haukeland <email@example.com>
Redistribution and use with or without modification, are permitted
provided that the above copyright notice can be reproduced. Please see
the enclosed GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE file for complete details.
Seems ok to me, though a little bit non-standard.
> In the old version, he did so in the file LICENSE, but that is
> technically not enough--you must do so in such a way that identifies
> *which files* are being licensed. The normal way is to put the
A LICENSE file in the root of package surely implies it applies to the
whole tarball, doesn't it? I've *never* seen a package with a copyright
statement that listed the source files that were going with that
copyright... Thomas, can you name one package that does so?
Anyway, could you please continue this discussion on -legal? This isn't
really a topic for discussion on -qa.
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)