Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, we can't pretend that "the GPL" is GPL-2 forever, so it would be a
> bad idea to keep the GPL pointing to the old license.
> The GPL is there for informative purposes only. Packages under GPLv2 or
> later will still be under GPLv2 or later, and th
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Russ Allbery:
>
> > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> * Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]:
> >
> >>> But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2 or
> >>> later" under the GPL version 3?
> >
> >>> An
* Russ Allbery:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]:
>
>>> 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
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> AISI, the reason for using the unversioned link is that it means less
> work for maintainers (and the work *is* significant when it comes to
> lots of packages) who have to update the copyright file every time
> license changes.
This reason doesn't make
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]:
>> 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 lat
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:49:58PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]:
> > * Santiago Vila:
> >
> > > + file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in
> > > + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these
On Sun, Jul 1, 2007 at 12:49:58 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> If it says "version N or later", we should of course point to the
> *earliest* version to give users the choice which version they want.
>
I don't understand this "of course", nor do I understand how the file we
point to relates to th
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]:
> * 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 Foundati
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:21:25 +0200 (CEST) Santiago Vila wrote:
[...]
> 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/commo
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,
> > +
* 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 ambiguit
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:17:00AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > + file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in
> > + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these
> > + licenses have been publis
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:17:00AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> + 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,
> + he
+ 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.
> This proposal does essentialy two things:
>
> - Disambiguate GPL/LGPL versioning requirement by extending it to any DFSG
> compatible version the FSF may publish.
>
> - Deprecate use of symlinks, since they're a source of problems (as exposed
> by GPLv3, see http://lists.debian.org/debi
retitle 431109 [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL
symlinks
thanks
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 10:04:02PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> Following /usr/share/doc/base-files/FAQ, I'm reassigning this to
> debian-policy.
>
> Please read my email to debian-legal ad debian-pol
16 matches
Mail list logo
