On Wednesday 25 July 2007 15:20:10 wrote Juergen Weigert: > On Jul 25, 07 12:36:46 +0200, Reinhard Max wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 at 12:00, Ludwig Nussel wrote: > > > You wouldn't be able to install the package without breaking > > > dependencies. That's annoying at least. > > > > Right, but that wouldn't matter from a legal point of view. If a > > license requires us to include the license text with the binary > > package, we might break the license no matter how hard we make it to > > install the package without the license file being installed as well. > > > > GPLv2 says (section 1.) "[...] and give any other recipients of the > > Program a copy of this License along with the Program." So, is setting > > a symlink to a file and adding a dependency to the package enough to > > fulfill the "along with the Program" requirement? > > Due to the symlink, the package has now one more dependency. > It is simply an incomplete package, unless licenses.rpm is also installed. > If the FSF insists on having a copy in each RPM, we can simply stop doing > symlinks for GPL, and still have saved a tree with all the other licenses > symlinked.
Can you ask the FSF please before we do it what their opinion about that is ? -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
