Hi Helge! (Taking off bug-texinfo and Karl for now)
On Die, 08 Aug 2006, Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > > The thing is, that text for --version comes straight from the GNU coding > > standards. I wouldn't want to change it without consulting rms (and > > changing standards.texi). Sigh. Is it worth it? > > This is up to Debian to decide how to treat this ambiguity. I > personally would prefer the programm to be precise, i.e. knowing the > license without downloading the source. For Debian, the inclusion of > COPYING (or a clear reference to the Debian version of it, i.e. the > already shipped GPL) could be a workaround for the moment, together > with debian/copyright this would clear the issue. But Debian might > also decide that *only* debian/copyright is relevant to the end user, > then this bug would become wishlist from my side. So if I extend the debian/copyright file to explicitely mention that the statement of info --version does not specify the GPL version, and that is GPLv2 as given in ...., would this be a solution to downgrade the bug to wishlist and see what rms/fsf decide on the wording? Best wishes Norbert ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Norbert Preining <preining AT logic DOT at> Università di Siena gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TINGRITH (n.) The feeling of silver paper against your fillings. --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]