On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 03:08 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > 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. Well, yes, but ... the real question is: What are legal implications on rpm packagers when they add legal files? Does it strengthen the rpm packager's legal position or weaken it in case a package is being legally fought? Ralf -- 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
