On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:53:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/tmp/mmake-2.2.1$ cat LICENSE COPYRIGHT GNUGPL (c) 1998-2001 Jan-Henrik Haukeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. [EMAIL PROTECTED]/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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
