Paul Howarth wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 23:37:32 -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
>>
>>> Does nobody else see this as a horribly hypocritical? If Red Hat is
>>> serious about enforcing this rule, then first mandate it on Core to
>>> lead by example.
>>
>>
>>
>> +1
>
>
> <AOL>
> Me too
> </AOL>
>
>>> Then everyone is forced to discuss the technical annoyances like below:
>>>
>>> How are we supposed to deal with cases where the source did not ship
>>> a full copy of the license in order to add to %doc easily? We are
>>> supposed to add another copy of the license to each SRPM?
>>
>>
>>
>> Do we have examples for this? (other than a missing GPL "COPYING" file)
>
>
> It's very common for both the GPL and Artistic license texts not to be
> shipped with perl modules that use the same license as perl (i.e. dual
> GPL/Artistic).
>
You may also add LaTeX packages from CTAN: most of them are licensed
under the LPPL (LaTeX Project Public License) but usually don't
include the full text of the license .
I think this may extended to all (?) comprehensive mirror systems:
* CPAN - Comprehensive Perl Archive Network
http://www.cpan.org/
* CTAN - Comprehensive TeX Archive Network
http://www.ctan.org/
* CRAN - Comprehensive R Archive Network
http://cran.r-project.org/
* ...
jpo
--
José Pedro Oliveira
* mailto: jpo@xxxxxxxxxxxx * http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo *
* gpg fingerprint = F9B6 8D87 859D 1C94 48F0 84C0 9749 9EB5 91BD 851B *
http://conferences.yapceurope.org/2005/ * http://braga.yapceurope.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
