[Fedora-legal-list] Providing a copy of the GPL

[Ruediger Landmann]

On 03/20/2011 01:37 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
> In the specific case of perl-NTLM, where we know upstream was responsive
> at some point in the recent past (at the time of the permission to
> relicense to GPL+ or Artistic), this situation can be addressed by
> contacting the copyright holder (aka upstream) and asking them to
> include a copy of the GPL license text in their source repository (or if
> they don't use one, in a tarball release). They don't even need to
> increment the versioning, just repack with a copy of the license text,
> so you can then package it. If they reply that they're too
> lazy/disinterested/not gonna do it for some odd reason, ask them
> explicitly if they are okay with you including a copy of the GPLv1
> license text with the package (and attach a copy of the GPLv1 license
> text (yes, the GPLv1, not a later version, because the perl licensing
> they granted is GPLv1 or later. If upstream adds a copy of GPLv2 or
> GPLv3, that is sufficient for us to distribute to meet this
> technicality, but if we're going to do it, we're going to do it
> right.)). They'll almost certainly reply "Fine.". If they don't, feel
> free to email me, as you will win a "No-Prize". ;)

Thanks for the clarification and especially for the detailed rationale. 
I've asked the packager to reconfer with upstream along the lines you 
suggest.

Beyond that, I think that your discussion of why we might not 
necessarily need to provide copies of the GPL in "add-on" packages like 
Perl modules or otherwise in situations where the copyright holder has 
made their intent clear would be a really valuable addition to the 
Licensing Guidelines page on the wiki. Specifically, this rationale 
could unpack the "(and only if)" wording in the "License Text" section, 
the significance of which was not previously clear to me. Please 
consider! :)

Cheers
Rudi