https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150362
--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com> ---
No problem, I was just going through review tickets I'm associated with and
updated them all (and made sure none of them were waiting for *me*!)
If I understand correctly, yes, including a copy of the license text is a
requirement:
4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you
receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice;
keep intact all notices stating that this License and any
non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code;
keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all
recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.
I find this website very useful for things like these:
https://choosealicense.com/licenses/gpl-3.0/
(in particular, the "bullet point" summary of the license terms at the top).
Is the missing license text a blocker for the Fedora package?
I think so. But I'm not sure how to handle the case where upstream states that
they publish code under GPL-3.0 but they *themselves* don't include a copy of
the license text ... I don't think RMS thought of this case :D
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150362