Re: copyright files and GPL links
Hi!
I guess this could be my last mail on the topic, I'm thus putting the
conclusion above the text, feel free to skip the rest starting from the
quoted part:
I don't see the real benefit (or, like you seem to do, need) of putting
the path of v3 into the copyright file too, because it might be
misguiding IMHO and isn't required, but I don't object to it. I just
want to make sure that we don't point _only_ to v3 in "v2 or later"
packages through using that symlink and not pointing to GPL-2 directly.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 11:54:17AM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:07:48AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > The copyright holder doesn't have to ship all subsequent versions of
> > the license, so why do you think we would need to do so?
>
> Because we want to. Because our ftp master will reject our packages if
> we don't.
That's all but wrong. Please fix your point of view. No ftp master
will reject our packages if we don't have a the path to GPL-2 *and*
GPL-3 in the copyright file if it's licenced "gplv2 or later".
> We don't have a legal requirement to do this, just providing a link
> would be enough. But we want to provide the complete license, as a
> service to our users.
Which is the v2 if we want to distribute it under v2, even if it has
the "or later" clause.
> I disagree with this. I am saying:
>
> If we tell people the license is GPL version 2 or later, then it
> is, no matter what full text we point to (even if we point to an
> irrelevant license, such as a BSD license). The link is only a
> service to our users, and doesn't change anything about the
> actual licensing.
The link is a service from the policy that we don't need to include the
full text but can get away with only the path to the file. If you would
put in the BSD license and say that it falls under the GPL the ftp
masters will reject that package.
> I'll stop responding to this. I'm just saying it is possible to not
> link to version 2, I'm not suggesting we actually do it. By the way,
> not linking to version 3 is also a policy violation, because then we
> haven't provided the full license terms.
If it says "v2 or later" we _do_ provide the full license terms for how
we chose to distribute it if we show the v2. I don't follow your
reasoning that the option for the v3 is included in "full license
terms", but I guess this is the main part where we disagree.
[cut down way again, fearing noone is reading anymore anyway]
So long,
Rhonda
P.S.: Bas, was your Mail-F'up2 in your last mail really on intention? :)
Reply to: