On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Tom Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> I'm wondering what other licenses might fall under this
> 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.
It looks like GPLv1 says "1. You may copy and distribute verbatim
copies of the Program's source code ... provided that you ... give any
other recipients of the Program a copy of this General Public License
along with the Program." So I'm guessing that this applies to GPLv1 as