Bug#431109: GPLv3 status?
Jim Sansing <jjsansing@verizon.net> writes:
> However, after reading the discussion in bug report 431109, I am
> wondering what is the rationale behind the common-licenses directory?
Mainly that repeating the uncompressed text of the GPL in every package
licensed under the GPL actually ends up taking a rather measurable amount
of space and is something of a waste. And since it's legal information,
it's much more difficult to justify stripping it even in embedded
configurations where that space really hurts.
> It seems that there is some disagreement and a bit of confusion, even in
> this group, on how to handle GPLvX or higher.
I think this was transitory. We can work out later if we need to say
something in Policy about the symlinks, but for the time being, I think
just listing the explicit versions that are in common-licenses will be
fine. Maintainers can point to the specific version of the file that
their package is released under, or if they want to deal with the
ambiguity and have a package that's released under the redistributor's
choice, use the symlink.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: