Hi Jonas, On Sunday 22 June 2008 11:36, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >(And then debian/copyrights refers to /usr/share/common-licences/GPL, > >which is the GPL3, so that's another (normal) bug.) > Why is that (the last part) a bug? GPL2+ _includes_ GPL3, so pointing > to that newer version of the license should be ok, no? The GPL3+ licence doesnt include GPL2 so by pointing to the GPL3+ only you are leaving some information out. I consider this buggy. (But as said, normal severity, maybe even minor.) It's like depending on python2.5 when the software runs just as fine with python2.4. I discussed this issue over yesterday (with my Debian Edu ftpmaster hat), first with Petter (who uploaded a package with such a copyright), then with Jörg Jaspert (as Debian ftpmaster). At first I consided this bug to be RC, but now I agree that, while not perfectly correct, this is not serious at all. > I suspect you confuse that with the problem of licensing GPL2 (without > allowing newer version) which now needs to include a local license text. No, I dont confuse that. (And you dont need to include a local licence text, /u/s/c-l/GPL-2 is there.) > >Please also remove the word "nice" from the short description > >(debian/control), all software is nice, isn't it? :) > /all software/all free software/ ;-) Heh. But then, not even that is true :-) regards, Holger
Attachment:
pgpxdue_X5WK4.pgp
Description: PGP signature