Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
Agreed. I think debian/copyright should always refer to the exact version of the GPL that the package says it's covered under and then document whether only that version is permissable or whether the "or later" part is available. (The exception is GPL v1, which isn't in common-licenses; in that case, right now, I think the best course of action is to treat the software as under GPL v2 for Debian's purposes. There isn't a lot of software in this category.) -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
