For example, Gists on GitHub don't have a field to track the license that they are available under. You can simply choose to create a public Gist or a secret (private) Gist.
Many of the open source licenses have text that seems to indicate that you must include the full license in a distribution:
The MIT License:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
The BSD 3-Clause License:
- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
The Apache 2.0 License:
You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License
The GPL, on the other hand, appears to not require you to carry the full license text, but simply tell recipients how to access the license text:
An interactive user interface displays “Appropriate Legal Notices” to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2) tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion.
For licenses like the MIT, BSD, and Apache 2.0, is there an appropriate method of indicating the license without including or distributing the full license alongside the work?
If so, what would this look like? Would it be similar to the recommendations for the GPL? If not, what would need to happen to allow for a short form of the license?