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