Re: [opal@debian.org: 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 <opal@debian.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
> called.
Current sid/sarge:
[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.
> 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
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Reply to: