Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5

2007-12-31 Thread Russ Allbery
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't like it. Current text seems to forbid referring to > `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL' for a package that is licensed under > GPL version N or later. At the very least, it should allow this. I don't believe that the currnet Policy forbids that

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5

2007-12-31 Thread Robert Millan
On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 09:06:42PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:17:00AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > >> > >> Instead, I think we should amend policy in this way: > >> > >> Packages under a fixed, definite version of the G

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5

2007-12-30 Thread Russ Allbery
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:17:00AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: >> >> Instead, I think we should amend policy in this way: >> >> Packages under a fixed, definite version of the GPL should refer to >> the versioned GPL file in /usr/share/common-licens

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

2007-07-28 Thread Russ Allbery
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, we can't pretend that "the GPL" is GPL-2 forever, so it would be a > bad idea to keep the GPL pointing to the old license. > The GPL is there for informative purposes only. Packages under GPLv2 or > later will still be under GPLv2 or later, and th

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

2007-07-28 Thread Santiago Vila
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Russ Allbery: > > > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> * Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]: > > > >>> But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2 or > >>> later" under the GPL version 3? > > > >>> An

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

2007-07-28 Thread Florian Weimer
* Russ Allbery: > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> * Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]: > >>> But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2 or >>> later" under the GPL version 3? > >>> And how do we discriminate between "GPL version 2 or later" and

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

2007-07-03 Thread Arnoud Engelfriet
Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Florian Weimer > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2 or > >later" under the GPL version 3? > > Actually, YOU CAN'T. > > The only person who can CHANGE the licence is the per

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

2007-07-02 Thread Pierre THIERRY
Scribit Anthony W. Youngman dies 02/07/2007 hora 21:37: > > But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2 > > or later" under the GPL version 3? > Actually, YOU CAN'T. > > The only person who can CHANGE the licence is the person who owns the > copyright. Actually, the text s

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

2007-07-02 Thread Anthony W. Youngman
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes * Santiago Vila: + file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these + licenses have been published by the Free Software

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

2007-07-01 Thread Russ Allbery
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > AISI, the reason for using the unversioned link is that it means less > work for maintainers (and the work *is* significant when it comes to > lots of packages) who have to update the copyright file every time > license changes. This reason doesn't make

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

2007-07-01 Thread Russ Allbery
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]: >> But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2 or >> later" under the GPL version 3? >> And how do we discriminate between "GPL version 2 or later" and "GPL >> version 3 or lat

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

2007-07-01 Thread Robert Millan
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:49:58PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]: > > * Santiago Vila: > > > > > + file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in > > > + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

2007-07-01 Thread Julien Cristau
On Sun, Jul 1, 2007 at 12:49:58 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > If it says "version N or later", we should of course point to the > *earliest* version to give users the choice which version they want. > I don't understand this "of course", nor do I understand how the file we point to relates to th

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

2007-07-01 Thread Andreas Barth
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]: > * Santiago Vila: > > > + file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in > > + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these > > + licenses have been published by the Free Software Foundati

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5

2007-06-30 Thread Robert Millan
> But, AFAIUI, the purpose of this informational sentence is to comply > with the GNU GPL v2, which states, in Section 1: > > | give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License > | along with the Program. > > and then includes (by reference to Section 1) this same restriction in >

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

2007-06-30 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:21:25 +0200 (CEST) Santiago Vila wrote: [...] > In other words, I think it would be ok if our copyright files were > worded like this: > > This program is free software. It is under GPL version 2 or later. On > Debian systems, the latest GPL version is in > /usr/share/commo

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

2007-06-30 Thread Santiago Vila
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Santiago Vila: > > > + file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in > > + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these > > + licenses have been published by the Free Software Foundation, > > +

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

2007-06-30 Thread Florian Weimer
* Santiago Vila: > + file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in > + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these > + licenses have been published by the Free Software Foundation, > + hence using the symlinks could lead to ambiguit