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

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 03:08 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar  9, 2007, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 05:27 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Mar  7, 2007, Peter Gordon <peter at thecodergeek.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > 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,
> >> 
> >> IANAL.  It's enough for you to tell that you can use any version of
> >> the GPL, but it's not enough for you to be allowed to distribute the
> >> program without a copy of the GPL, because the GPL itself requires it
> >> to be included.
> 
> > IANAL, IMO, this is an upstream-issue, because it's legally
> > irrelevant/legally not bind to _upstream_ whether a packager adds a copy
> > of the GPL or not.
> 
> IANAL, but AFAIK the terms established by the GPL for licensees don't
> apply to a sole copyright holder.
Well, yes, but ... the real question is: What are legal implications on
rpm packagers when they add legal files?

Does it strengthen the rpm packager's legal position or weaken it in
case a package is being legally fought?

Ralf