On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> My belief is that the best approach would be to have
> /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL symbolically linked in a manner similar to
> library versions. This will mean that someone wishing to specify a
> particular version of the GPL can do so by a furthe
On 31-Aug-01, 10:43 (CDT), Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> > To make it happen you should file a wishlist bug against the package which
> > provides the GPL, asking it to provide it as a versioned file and symlink
> > /usr/share/common-licen
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 31-Aug-01, 10:43 (CDT), Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As of today, there is only one GPL file. In my opinion it's soon for that.
> > However, if you insist that this has to be done now, then please get
> > policy changed first. For ex
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
>> No, we change practice first, then policy.
Santiago> Are you sure? Hmm, perhaps we should have waited for all packages
Santiago> moving to /usr/share/doc before making it policy
[ In reply to last Manoj's message ]
Ok, let's suppose that we do things gradually, as you suggest.
[ I'm trying to delegate the decision to the policy group, if possible ]
Let's consider the following proposal:
The GPL file in base-files should better be renamed to "GPL-2" and
GPL should be
Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> [ In reply to last Manoj's message ]
>
> Ok, let's suppose that we do things gradually, as you suggest.
> [ I'm trying to delegate the decision to the policy group, if possible ]
>
> Let's consider the following proposal:
>
> The GPL file in base-files should better b
6 matches
Mail list logo
