Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 03:06:27PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: >>> Are now all packages buggy that reference >>> /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL instead of GPL-2 because GPL now >>> points to GPL-3? >> Yes. > > Only if they are "GPL 2 only". GPL 3 is a valid license for a GPL2+ > licensed work. It might be better to reference both version 2 and 3, > but referencing version 3 is certainly not wrong.
The ambiguity of using the GPL symlink is not useful - particularly with respect to libraries. It is all too easy to re-license a formerly GPL-2+ library under GPL-3+ (using the machine-operable nomenclature for debian/copyright) and thereby make it impossible for Debian to distribute an application that uses the library but which contains GPL-2 only code. debian/copyright should be unambiguous. IMHO, packages that specify /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL are buggy if either: 1. GPL-2 only code is included in the package 2. GPL-2 only code is included in a *linked* package where linked is intended in a strict meaning of "linked by a runtime dependency" on a shared library. These are probably minor or normal bugs but bugs all the same. This list is principally about new packages and new packages should do everything possible to avoid ambiguities in debian/copyright. The fact that existing packages may do things one way is no excuse for not doing things TheRightWay(TM) in new packages. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
