In the license guidelines, under the "License Text" section [0], there is a bit of guidance regarding when to ask upstream to include the full text of the license or not.
"Common licenses that require including their texts with all derivative works include ASL 2.0, EPL, BSD and MIT"
I'm wondering what other licenses might fall under this category. For example, would "GPL+ and Artistic" also be in this list? Lots of Perl modules are licensed in this way, but they usually don't include a LICENSE file. I've found that many Perl modules simply have a sentence "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself." In those cases, should we ask upstream to include the full License text each time?
- Ken
[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
On 09/10/2013 12:16 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
In the license guidelines, under the "License Text" section [0], there is a bit of guidance regarding when to ask upstream to include the full text of the license or not.
"Common licenses that require including their texts with all derivative works include ASL 2.0, EPL, BSD and MIT"
I'm wondering what other licenses might fall under this category. For example, would "GPL+ and Artistic" also be in this list? Lots of Perl modules are licensed in this way, but they usually don't include a LICENSE file. I've found that many Perl modules simply have a sentence "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself." In those cases, should we ask upstream to include the full License text each time?
We only _need_ this when the license explicitly requires that a copy of it be included with distribution. It is always good form to ask upstream to not be lazy and include a copy of the license text with the source code.
Artistic 1.0 doesn't have that requirement, but GPLv2 does.
~tom
== Fedora Project
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
I'm wondering what other licenses might fall under this category. For example, would "GPL+ and Artistic" also be in this list? Lots of Perl modules are licensed in this way, but they usually don't include a LICENSE file. I've found that many Perl modules simply have a sentence "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself." In those cases, should we ask upstream to include the full License text each time?
We only _need_ this when the license explicitly requires that a copy of it be included with distribution. It is always good form to ask upstream to not be lazy and include a copy of the license text with the source code.
Artistic 1.0 doesn't have that requirement, but GPLv2 does.
Thanks Tom.
It looks like GPLv1 says "1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code ... provided that you ... give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this General Public License along with the Program." So I'm guessing that this applies to GPLv1 as well?
- Ken