Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > Hi! > > 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. Oh, God... Just after "GPLv2 (or later)" add this text: "Version 2 of the GPL license is available here: <link to real GPL-2 file>. The 3rd version of the GPL license is available here: <link to real GPL-3>. Note that you can choose either one of the versions or any later version of the GPL license. For you convenience, links to the currently known versions of the license were listed above." The link to real GPL-3 can be the one in the common licenses, or one delivered by the package itself. > 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. There are discussions going on what to do with the GPL > symlink, and some suggest that it should point to the GPLv3. > > I don't think that a forced-upgrade is something that is really wanted > (and I doubt that the symlink change will get done). 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. > > So long, > Rhonda -- Regards, EddyP ============================================= "Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature