Please include full license text in the distribution
Closed this issue · 13 comments
That would be a good practice for FOSS and will make packagers happy.
Also please do for File::Next.
Why do you see that as preferable to pointing to the URL?
That's not a kind of preference. That's just more usual and even always done in any mature project.
After that, it is a responsibility for Fedora packager to convince upstream authors to include full license text.
You have given zero reasons why including the text is better than pointing at a website. Just saying "That's how everyone else does it" is not reason enough for me to do so.
This point is also commented in perlmodstyle[1]. After all, at your best judgement.
[1] http://search.cpan.org/~drolsky/perl/pod/perlmodstyle.pod#Licensing
Make sure that your module has a license, and that the full text of it is included in the distribution (unless it's a common one and the terms of the license don't require you to include it).
Artistic 2.0 is common and the terms don't require me to include it.
My judgment, since nobody has said why it's a good thing to include the license, is to not bother to do so.
We would respect your decision.
Who is "we"?
Are you a Fedora packager? Are you asking for the license text to be included for the benefit of the Fedora project?
Relax. That's not a big deal. I am a Fedora packager, but nothing would specially benefit Fedora.
I'm relaxed. I'm just trying to understand.
I am not a legal prof and also don't quite understand. Just including full license text is a usual software distributing practice.
If just referring to a URL, and the page content of the URL changed for some reason (e.g. by intrusion), then the licensing of your software seems changed. Since if just referring to a URL, you are saying "the license of this software is whatever shown on that page". That would be not strict. It would be safe if include full license text.
Just including full license text is a usual software distributing practice.
The point I'm trying to make is that "usual practice" isn't reason enough to do something.
There will probably be no further releases of ack 1.x. However, ack 2.0 now includes an explicit license file.