Hi,
Santiago Vila wrote:
Looks like this bug just needs to be resolved on the technical side now.
Ok, the fact that ftpmaster have already accepted GPLv3 seems a good reason
to include it in base-files, but: what about LGPLv3? Should I just
forward this bug to the ftpmasters?
My personal
Hi,
I second Peter's statement.
The result of this bug not being solved is that people are including a
separate GPLv3 copy in their packages (as I'm doing for now). Hopefully,
they will later change it to the normal policy procedure (link to
common-licenses)...
Some further relevant
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Roland Stigge wrote:
Hi,
I second Peter's statement.
The result of this bug not being solved is that people are including a
separate GPLv3 copy in their packages (as I'm doing for now). Hopefully, they
will later change it to the normal policy procedure (link to
Santiago Vila wrote:
The wording will not change, but the meaning *will*.
It is sort of the idea behind the GPL that the meaning of saying GPL
will change whenever the FSF updates.
I do not decide policy. It should be at least debian-policy who
decides about accepting the GPL3 or not.
The relevant section in the policy says that Packages distributed under
the UCB BSD license, the Artistic license, the GNU GPL, and the GNU
LGPL, should refer to the corresponding files
under /usr/share/common-licenses, rather than quoting them in the
copyright file.
The base-files package
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
The relevant section in the policy says that Packages distributed under
the UCB BSD license, the Artistic license, the GNU GPL, and the GNU
LGPL, should refer to the corresponding files
under /usr/share/common-licenses, rather than quoting them in
Package: base-files
Version: 4.0.0
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
With the release of GPL version 3, and the relicensing of new GNU
releases under this licence, it would be great if base-files could
include the licence.
I've attached a patch (not sure about the version number in the
changelog,
7 matches
Mail list logo
