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, > > + hence using the symlinks could lead to ambiguity. > > > > I disagree with this. It should be ok to point to the latest version > > of the GPL if the program says "Version X or later". Many programs > > do that, and we should not need to change them. > > 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 later"?
We would not be necessarily relicensing to GPL version 3. The paragraph "On Debian systems the GPL is in /usr/share/common-licenses" is mainly for informational purposes. The license for the package would still be the one in the source code, and it would be as well the one in the copyright file. 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/common-licenses/GPL. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
