Re: O: ted -- lightweight .DOC editor
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:43:55 +0100
David Given <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > The problems described in #501638 would mean that the package would
> > not be allowed back into Debian unless fixed.
> It looks like this isn't an issue any more --- the relevant paragraph
> from the docs is now:
> Ted is free software. By making Ted freely available, I want to
> contribute to the propagation of Linux as a viable platform for
> technical computer enthusiasts. As Ted is free software, I assume
> no responsibility for the consequences of using it. It is up to
> you to decide whether Ted suits your purpose or not. Ted is
> distributed with absolutely no warranty under the terms of the GNU
> Public License.
There's still no such thing as the "GNU Public License", what the
author seemingly try to refer to is called "GNU General Public
License", that is, the 'G' in "GPL" stands for "General", not for "GNU".
And still, it's not clear why the author can't just use the standard
short disclaimer notice which is recommended by the GPL itself for
usage. It's standardized and unambiguous. The author can read on this
in the "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" section of the
GPL (v2 at least). Could you possibly try to convince him to actually
do this? Everyone thinks legalese is boring, but that's not an excuse
for ignoring this issues and trying to invent strange approaches to
licensing free software.