Is referencing the GPL in the package's README enough of a "license"?

[Peter Gordon]

Hi, all.

I have a question about the legal status of a package I'm working on.
I'm nearly done with writing a nice package of Tavis Ormandy's scanmem
utility [1]. However, it contains no full license text, and the headers
in the source files only contain author/version informations. The only
reference to a license aside from what's on the website is that the
README file (which I include as %doc) contains the following line:

	License: GPL

Is this reference enough, or should I also include a full copy of the
GPL as %doc as well? (If so, I'll email Tavis and bug him about
including it in the tarball.)

Thanks. 

[1] http://taviso.decsystem.org/scanmem.html
-- 
Peter Gordon (codergeek42) / FSF Associate Member #5015
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint:
  DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479
Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/ 
About: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PeterGordon
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070306/776dabfd/attachment.sig>