[Fedora-legal-list] including full license texts

Tom Callaway tcallawa at redhat.com
Thu Sep 12 04:05:37 UTC 2013


On 09/10/2013 12:16 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> In the license guidelines, under the "License Text" section [0], there
> 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.

~tom

==
Fedora Project


More information about the legal mailing list