Amanda waite wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: >> Amanda Waite wrote: >>> A number of packages have a copyright file that basically says that >>> this software is licensed under the GPL or LGPL and that you should >>> have got a copy of the license text "with the program" >>> >>> To me this isn't the license and in such cases we should also include >>> the license text in the copyright file (or at least include gpl.txt >>> in the package). That's my view but I can see it may be a bone of >>> contention. >>> >>> What's the consensus on this? Is the following text enough or do we >>> need to add the license text? >> >> You should likely have two files; a copyright file that contains a >> short notice for your program and possibly a summary of licenses that >> apply; and then a license file for each license which applies to the >> software in question. > > Sorry, I meant packages currently in SFW or being integrated into SFW > and the copyright file I'm referring to is the copyright file that's > part of the package (say usr/src/pkgdefs/SUNWseru/copyright). It came up > because of John Sonnenschein's request for a review of GNU coreutils > 7.4, which has the situation I describe, i.e.: it has the information > that it's licensed under GPL but it does not have the license text. To > me it should include the license text.
From what I've seen, all of our packages are supposed to include the actual license text in some file delivered with the software. With that said, I don't believe the copyright file is supposed to include the entire license text for FOSS software. I believe it is supposed to just have a short notice about the copyright of the program. My belief is what John did is fine, as long as it delivers the full license text in another file. However, I'm not an expert on what Sun has done with SVR4 packages in the past, so perhaps Danek or someone else can give you a more authoritative view. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker
