[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#255955: [opal@debian.org: Re: Accepted mmake 2.2.1-4 (all source)]

Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl> writes:

> [jeroen@mordor]/tmp/mmake-2.2.1$ cat LICENSE
> COPYRIGHT GNUGPL (c) 1998-2001 Jan-Henrik Haukeland <hauk@tildeslash.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.
> [jeroen@mordor]/tmp/mmake-2.2.1$
> Seems ok to me, though a little bit non-standard.

The problem with this is that it does not actually say which files
this applies to.

> > 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?

It's like you didn't even read what I wrote.

The normal way is to put a reference to the GPL in every file right
next to the copyright.  For examples, see GNU Emacs, GCC, coreutils,
and many others.

> Anyway, could you please continue this discussion on -legal? This isn't
> really a topic for discussion on -qa.

Actually, just see me personally.  I'm now the mmake maintainer, so
there is no need for -qa discussion. :)


Reply to: