MantisBT - Doomseeker
View Issue Details
0003308Doomseeker[All Projects] Suggestionpublic2017-10-22 21:132017-10-23 12:50
WubTheCaptain 
WubTheCaptain 
normalminorN/A
closedno change required 
1.1 
1.2 
0003308: Include a copy of the GNU GPL license, regardless of release under the GNU LGPL
Quote from The GNU Project
All programs, whether they are released under the GPL or LGPL, should include the text version of the GPL.


Quote from The GNU Project
If you are releasing your program under the Lesser GPL, you should also include the text version of the LGPL, usually in a file called COPYING.LESSER. Please note that, since the LGPL is a set of additional permissions on top of the GPL, it's crucial to include both licenses so users have all the materials they need to understand their rights.


Can I, please? The intent is GPLv2 text.

  1. wget -O COPYING'https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt [^]'

  2. hg add COPYING

  3. hg commit

  4. ...

'https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.en.html [^]'
No tags attached.
related to 0003295closed Zalewa Rename LICENSE files to COPYING 
patch 0001-include-gplv2-license.patch (19,548) 2017-10-22 21:43
/tracker/file_download.php?file_id=2223&type=bug
Issue History
2017-10-22 21:13WubTheCaptainNew Issue
2017-10-22 21:13WubTheCaptainStatusnew => assigned
2017-10-22 21:13WubTheCaptainAssigned To => WubTheCaptain
2017-10-22 21:14WubTheCaptainStatusassigned => new
2017-10-22 21:17WubTheCaptainStatusnew => assigned
2017-10-22 21:17WubTheCaptainSteps to Reproduce Updatedbug_revision_view_page.php?rev_id=11179#r11179
2017-10-22 21:17WubTheCaptainStatusassigned => feedback
2017-10-22 21:18WubTheCaptainStatusfeedback => new
2017-10-22 21:21WubTheCaptainRelationship addedrelated to 0003295
2017-10-22 21:43WubTheCaptainFile Added: 0001-include-gplv2-license.patch
2017-10-22 21:43WubTheCaptainNote Added: 0018604
2017-10-22 21:43WubTheCaptainStatusnew => needs review
2017-10-22 21:57WubTheCaptainNote Added: 0018606
2017-10-22 21:57WubTheCaptainStatusneeds review => assigned
2017-10-22 22:19WubTheCaptainNote Added: 0018607
2017-10-22 22:19WubTheCaptainStatusassigned => closed
2017-10-22 22:19WubTheCaptainResolutionopen => no change required
2017-10-22 22:20WubTheCaptainNote Edited: 0018607bug_revision_view_page.php?bugnote_id=18607#r11183
2017-10-22 22:36WubTheCaptainNote Added: 0018610
2017-10-22 22:36WubTheCaptainStatusclosed => feedback
2017-10-22 22:36WubTheCaptainResolutionno change required => reopened
2017-10-23 04:15Blzut3Note Added: 0018616
2017-10-23 12:50WubTheCaptainStatusfeedback => closed
2017-10-23 12:50WubTheCaptainResolutionreopened => no change required

Notes
(0018604)
WubTheCaptain   
2017-10-22 21:43   
Proposed patch attached.
(0018606)
WubTheCaptain   
2017-10-22 21:57   
I'll hold this off until 0003295 is resolved, because of Windows installs.
(0018607)
WubTheCaptain   
2017-10-22 22:19   
(edited on: 2017-10-22 22:20)
I'm going to refrain from doing this change after all, because the LGPLv2.1 license text is the full license. Only the LGPLv3 license (being a "slim" license) requires having a copy of GPLv3 handy, to understand what exceptions are being granted.

(0018610)
WubTheCaptain   
2017-10-22 22:36   
Actually, I can't decide for myself.

The LGPLv2.1 still talks a lot about "ordinary General Public License". Should we do it anyway, as courtesy?
(0018616)
Blzut3   
2017-10-23 04:15   
If we go back in time to when LGPLv2.1 was current they said to put the LGPL in COPYING and no mention of including the GPL:'https://web.archive.org/web/20070428002817/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html [^]'

I don't really see a point in distributing an extraneous license file and it's not like there aren't a million other places that one can get it if they really want it.

This also addresses the file name debate in 0003295.