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
5 matches
Mail list logo
