On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 10:58 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Andrew McMillan <and...@morphoss.com> writes: > > 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. > > Hi Andrew, > > Did the subsequent discussion resolve your concerns about including the > GPL v1 in common-licenses? I do think there are a lot of packages that > are explicitly distributed under GPL v1 or later due to the Perl licensing > situation.
I guess this is the status quo, so we should continue with it. The
weight of opinion seems against me :-)
Cheers,
Andrew.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
andrew (AT) morphoss (DOT) com +64(272)DEBIAN
Does the turtle move for you? www.kame.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
