IMO, no matter WHAT way it's implememented, there is a strong issue
here, and it could be implemented WAY past the GPL, to other licenses as
well.
What I would most like to see myself is adding a /etc/licensing/
directory in which every license used on the system can esist, for
example:
/etc/licensing/
\-- GPL
\-- BSD
\-- Other
And as follows, then each package, in it's /usr/share/doc/packagename/
directory would have a Symbolic Link (because hardlinks can't cross
filesystems, and many people don't keep /usr and / on the same) from
/usr/share/doc/foo/COPYING.GPL to /etc/licensing/GPL ..
As for dual-licensed packages, like QT, there could be a COPYING.GPL and
COPYING.QPL symlink in the doc directory, as well as a README.copying
which states it's licensed under either license.
Then, perhaps, maybe /etc/licensing/lists/ which includes files such as
GPL.list, BSD.list, and others, which has a listing of all installed
packages under that license...
There are some issues implementing this, notably the /etc/licensing/lists,
and making sure that packages don't delete the /etc/licensing/LICENSE file
for it's license, unless it's the only package that uses it.
What does everyone think? Is this too farfetched of a plan, or is it a
Good Idea?
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 05:36:42PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > So you're right that the rule is that the GPL must be shipped when you
> > ship the complete work, and that it's not quite sensible to mean with
> > every piece of the complete work.
>
> Note that we ship the base-files package marked as "Essential: yes",
> and it's shipped accompanying every .deb on every Debian mirror.
>
> Somewhat analogously, if you have an unpacked source tree available by
> HTTP, presumably that's okay, even if the user never bothers downloading
> the COPYING.GPL file (since if they wanted to read it, they trivially
> could have). Yes? Or must the HTTP server be modified to attach the GPL
> to every file downloaded, just in case?
>
> This seems analogous to the Debian archive, to me.
>
> Is it also illegal to email a 20 line, GPLed, .c file to someone,
> without attaching the entire GPL?
>
> That seems analogous to someone giving someone else a floppy with a
> single .deb on it, to me, rather than any Debian does itself.
>
> Would you really suggest that every source file should include the
> complete text of the GPL so as to ensure the latter never happens? That
> seems analogous to what you're suggesting here. It seems like an awkward
> and cumbersome solution to something that's not actually a problem
> for anyone.
/-----------------------------------------------------------\
< <What Am I Doing? I'm Quietly Judging You.> >
< <Rando Christensen> >
< <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
\-------------------------------------------------------------------/
