On Mar 9, 2007, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 05:27 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Mar 7, 2007, Peter Gordon <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > However, it contains no full license text, and the headers in the >> > source files only contain author/version informations. The only >> > reference to a license aside from what's on the website is that the >> > README file (which I include as %doc) contains the following line: >> >> > License: GPL >> >> > Is this reference enough, >> >> IANAL. It's enough for you to tell that you can use any version of >> the GPL, but it's not enough for you to be allowed to distribute the >> program without a copy of the GPL, because the GPL itself requires it >> to be included. > IANAL, IMO, this is an upstream-issue, because it's legally > irrelevant/legally not bind to _upstream_ whether a packager adds a copy > of the GPL or not. IANAL, but AFAIK the terms established by the GPL for licensees don't apply to a sole copyright holder. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
