Giacomo A Catenazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think we should add also the license version in the first paragraph, > as is stated in the second part, not to confuse users.
> + license, the GNU GPL (v. 2), the GNU LGPL (v. 2 and v. 2.1), and > the GNU FDL should refer > + to the corresponding files under Agreed. Here's a new patch. Note that this removes the unversioned licenses from the non-normative footnote; that's not a normative change yet, but I do want to discuss that separately under Bug#431109. --- orig/policy.sgml +++ mod/policy.sgml @@ -8653,21 +8653,18 @@ <p> Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, the Artistic - license, the GNU GPL, and the GNU LGPL, should refer to the + license, the GNU GPL (version 2), the GNU LGPL (versions 2 and + 2.1), and the GNU FDL (version 1.2) should refer to the corresponding files under <file>/usr/share/common-licenses</file>,<footnote> <p> For example, <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic</file>, <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD</file>, - <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL</file>, - <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL</file>, - <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL</file>, - <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2</file>, and - <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1</file>, and so - on. Note that the GFDL is new here, and the license file - may not yet be in place in - <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL</file>. + <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2</file>, + <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1</file>, + <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL-1.2</file>, and so + on. </p> </footnote> rather than quoting them in the copyright file. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]