On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:35 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Ok, I agree that it would a good idea to include GPL-1 in common-licenses > because of the high number of packages still using it.
I'm sorry, but I disagree, for the time being. I do not believe that
large numbers of packages are deliberately using GPL v1, and I think
that anyone who is needs to confirm that explicitly since (I hope) many
of them have moved on to less broken licenses such as GPL3 or GPL2.
> The blurb in debian/copyright has usually two parts.
'usually' is not sufficient. We need to explicitly know what the
license is.
> Thus, I see no reason to use a versioned license when the license says
> "version foo or later".
Well, that's OK, perhaps, if you have confirmed that the software
license of the upstream project has that text, except that *exactly*
that text might be the *only* difference from the standard text.
If we have a common license which is GPL-1-or-later in common licenses I
would be OK with. I would not be ok with a common license of GPL-1
only, because (a) hopefully it is rare and (b) it is acknowledged to be
old and broken, to some degree, and should be discouraged.
Cheers,
Andrew.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
andrew (AT) morphoss (DOT) com +64(272)DEBIAN
Try to value useful qualities in one who loves you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
