RE: BK MetaData License Problem?

Hell.Surfers
2002-10-07T00:06:14Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 309 bytes --]

The file must be available for free, seperately if its not poss to include it, the source must say its a GPL, thats about it.

Cheers, Dean McEwan. Currently hacking KGI, which I don't understand, oh and ask me about OpenModemTalk...

On Sun, 6 Oct 2002 15:23:38 +0100 (BST) jbradford@dial.pipex.com wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2183 bytes --]

From: jbradford@dial.pipex.com
To: mingo@elte.hu
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BK MetaData License Problem?
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 15:23:38 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <200210061423.g96ENcH3003097@darkstar.example.net>

>
> until now the Linux kernel tree was distributed in a tarball that had a
> nice COPYING file in a very prominent spot. With BK the situation is
> different - and like i said in previous mails it's not BK's "fault", but
> BK's "effect" - and it's a situation that needs to be remedied, right?

Strictly speaking, isn't it a violation of the GPL for somebody to distribute a single file of any GPLed project, without attaching the COPYING file to it?

E.G. say somebody makes a CVS tree available via the web - you can download foobar.c without ever seeing the COPYING file.

John.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/