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
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
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
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
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
* 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
* 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
> 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
>
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
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,
> > +
* 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
18 matches
Mail list logo