Re: copyright files and GPL links
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 04:35:58PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 10:56:04AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > The policy says that packages should refer to the files in the
> > common-licences directory instead of quoting the licence text itself.
> > This is done, but I think there is one common mistake on a lot of
> > packages (not only games related ones): They point to the GPL symlink
> > instead of GPL-2.
>
> Actually this is not a mistake IMO. The GPL symlink should be "the
> latest released version" (well, appearantly not everyone agrees about
> that, even).
I might agree with that, but especially then I immensly disagree with
that we should point to there.
> However, in case of "GPL version X or later" it is impossible to do
> that, since not all versions are known. It is reasonable to point to
> the GPL link and write something like: This program is licensed under
> the GNU General Public License, either version 2 of the license, or
> (at your option), any later version. The latest version of the GPL
> can be found here: ...
Why should we chose the latest? It is "upon your choice", not "upon
_our_ choice". You are taking away the choice from the users by
following your way.
> But it is certainly not incorrect to point only to the latest version.
It is technically limiting the choices our users can make with respect
to it.
> The reason is that as a packager we must distribute the program. We
> can choose to accept only version 3, and distribute it as such.
Which we definitely should *not* do because it is not in the interest
of our users.
> Practically, I think it is certainly useful to use the GPL link, because
> I think it is more likely that the software will change into "version 3
> or later" than into "version 2 only" (but obviously I could be wrong
> about that). If we use the link, there is no problem if we don't notice
> the "version 3 or later" change, because it is still the correct
> license.
There _is_ a problem, because we would still write in the copyright
file that it's version 2 or later. We *have* to update the copyright
file anyway.
> > While it might be convenient to do so, I think it is wrong. When the
> > license states that it is "GPLv2 (or later)" it should IMHO point to the
> > GPL-2 file.
>
> Why? What it says is that the program is dual-licensed GPL2 and GPL3.
No. It means that _our_ choice was taken to licence it under v3.
> It may be best to point to both, and I certainly like the
> maintainability of using just the link: we don't even need to
> re-upload to show our users that they can accept a new license.
We _do_ need to change the copyright file. Have you actually taken a
look into any copyright file? Into a proper one that has a bit more
than just the file path in it - which would be completely wrong anyway?
Please read [1], thanks.
> > There are discussions going on what to do with the GPL
> > symlink, and some suggest that it should point to the GPLv3.
>
> Of course it should. It would be totally confusing if it didn't. But
> let's not have that discussion on this list. :-)
And that's exactly why one shouldn't point to the symlinked file.
> > I don't think that a forced-upgrade is something that is really wanted
> > (and I doubt that the symlink change will get done).
>
> There is no forced upgrade.
> Users can choose to accept any version of the GPL (as long as it is
> not smaller than 2). The only difference is what we give them to read
> if they want the see the license.
That way you tell them already that it's v3 licenced, if you point them
to v3.
> The best option is IMO to offer both version 2 and version "latest"
> (which is what the link should be). There is no reason to avoid the
> link; it certainly is a valid license for the program.
But not our choice to make. We would be limiting the users that way.
> > But that was also the reason with the sources.list file where it was
> > switched from the "stable" symbolic name directly to the release
> > codenames.
>
> There's a huge difference between automatically getting a newer (but
> offered by the copyright holder) license when asking for it, and having
> all software on your machine upgraded when you just ask for bugfixes.
It isn't offered by the copyright holder. They might not want to
switch to v3 now. It would be the choice of the licence authors, not
the copyright holder's. YMMV.
So long,
Rhonda
[1] <http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html>
Reply to: