On Mar 3, 2005, at 2:05 PM, Pieter Hartsook wrote:
Even for developers the 'standard' approach for GPL is to state the license is, for example, GPL 2.0, and then to provide a link back to the official GPL license site for the details. So I feel even including the full text of the GPL in the distro is problematic.
Actually the GPL 2.0 text states that you must provide a copy of the license with the program.
Our situation is even more problematic because we are both a binary and source distribution even for the end user install, because the python .py source files are there.
And BTW, presenting this to the end-user during the install of an "end-user version" is especially inappropriate IMHO.
I'm not sure what the right thing is, although on many linuxes you can install binary applications without being shown the GPL for each package. This is true even in the highly ideological Debian distribution.
Ted
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
