On 09/10/2013 12:16 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
In the license guidelines, under the "License Text" section
is a bit of guidance regarding when to ask upstream to include the
full text of the license or not.
"Common licenses that require including their texts with all
derivative works include ASL 2.0, EPL, BSD and MIT"
I'm wondering what other licenses might fall under this category. For
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.