Re: Bug#436105: suggestion to add GPL-1 as a common licence
Andrew McMillan <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:35 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>> Ok, I agree that it would a good idea to include GPL-1 in
>> common-licenses because of the high number of packages still using it.
> I'm sorry, but I disagree, for the time being. I do not believe that
> large numbers of packages are deliberately using GPL v1, and I think
> that anyone who is needs to confirm that explicitly since (I hope) many
> of them have moved on to less broken licenses such as GPL3 or GPL2.
Perl is explicitly and deliberately distributed under the GPL v1 or any
later version, and therefore every Perl module whose license is "the same
terms as Perl" is also distributed under the GPL v1 or any later version.
There are also other instances of the same issue. I suspect quite a few.
For example, one of the licenses of libpam-krb5 is GPL v1 or later, which
currently can't be properly represented in the copyright file without
adding the full text of the GPL v1 to the copyright file.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>