Bug#255955: [email@example.com: Re: Accepted mmake 2.2.1-4 (all source)]
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> [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.
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. :)