On 08/04/04 21:21 +0100, Matthew Johnson said ... > On Sat Apr 05 00:06, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote: > > > So if I am packaging a piece of software for Debian and the software is > > licensed > > under the GPL, is the above valid (and more importantly, is it enough) for > > debian/copyright? Or is wording like the following a _must_: > > Yes, I would say it is.
As in, Yes, including /usr/share/common-licenses in the 'license blurb' text itself is valid? Or ... Yes, one must copy the three paragraphs (under "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs") from the GPL text verbatim and then add the path to GPL on Debian systems. I suppose the latter, because, like you said, the wording is a license grant and has nothing to do with the license text itself. > debian/copyright needs to give the licence > status for everything in the package, so any isomorphic declaration is > fine. It's just customary to copy the upstream declaration verbatim and > then add clarification below. Sure, I think the "isomorphic declaration" bit is what is important. In case of the new machine-interpretable copyright format I suppose when we say 'License: GPL' it is an isomorphic declaration. Thanks, Giridhar -- Y Giridhar Appaji Nag | http://www.appaji.net/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
