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 _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
