On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 11:44:38AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Ari" == Ari Makela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Ari> The file now includes GPL version 2 but probably not in future Debian > Ari> releases. And what if my package is installed in such a future > Ari> release? It'll have a wrong licence. > > Flawed assumption. I think you do Debian and the policy group > a disservice by claiming that we shall, in the future, have such > little regard for copyrights and installed bases. >
Actually, I think the whole discussion has been a bit off point. As I read the original email, the developer wanted to release the package under GPL with the 'or later version' clause removed. This is no longer a verbatim copy of the GPL. In such a case, should the packager include the entire _modified_ GPL, or include the original GPL with a rider clause in COPYRIGHT? Or, should the "GPL with 'or later version' removed" be included in common licenses? After all, as I recall, the kernel itself is now distributed with such a license! Jim Penny > -- > Change your thoughts and you change your world. > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> > 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E > 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >