Re: installer debian/copyright issue
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 04:38:23PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Bastian Blank <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 05:05:55PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> >> IMO the licence is "GPL-2 or higher" (most of the code was developed when
> >> GPL-2 was active), so the link should probably be to GPL-2.
> > IMHO it should only point to GPL-2 if it is GPL v2 only. Describing a
> > GPL v2 or later code as is always allowed in this context.
> In fact the text inside of GPL-2 says this so it looks logical to
> point to it.
This is a verbatim copy of the GPL v2. I don't see any added text.
> The problem of linking to GPL is that it points to latest
> GPL version (and in this case is GPL 3 ATM).
This is intentionally. The GPL v3 is completely applicable to the code.
There was a large discussion in the past about this and according to my
memory the conclusion was to use always refer to the latest version for
all the "or later" code.
> Someone can choose to release a d-i fork as GPL-3 but the code from
> that moment and afterward will be GPL-3 or later, not GPL-2 or later.
This would not make any difference. This reference to the common
licenses is only a way to avoid having a copy everywhere. The exact
version with or without "or later" clause needs to be described
Extreme feminine beauty is always disturbing.
-- Spock, "The Cloud Minders", stardate 5818.4