retitle 431109 [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks thanks On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 10:04:02PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Following /usr/share/doc/base-files/FAQ, I'm reassigning this to debian-policy. > > Please read my email to debian-legal ad debian-policy from two days ago. In my interpretation, Policy doesn't exclude any version of the GPL from this requirement, but I admit that it is ambigous, specially considering the examples. This proposal does essentialy two things: - Disambiguate GPL/LGPL versioning requirement by extending it to any DFSG compatible version the FSF may publish. - Deprecate use of symlinks, since they're a source of problems (as exposed by GPLv3, see http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/06/msg00234.html) -- Robert Millan My spam trap is firstname.lastname@example.org. Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list.
diff -ur debian-policy-22.214.171.124.old/policy.sgml debian-policy-126.96.36.199/policy.sgml --- debian-policy-188.8.131.52.old/policy.sgml 2006-10-03 00:36:50.000000000 +0200 +++ debian-policy-184.108.40.206/policy.sgml 2007-06-29 23:58:41.000000000 +0200 @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ <p> A copy of the GNU General Public License is available as - <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL</file> in the Debian GNU/Linux + <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2</file> in the Debian GNU/Linux distribution or on the World Wide Web at <url id="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html" name="the GNU General Public Licence">. You can also @@ -8625,24 +8625,26 @@ <p> Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, the Artistic - license, the GNU GPL, and the GNU LGPL, should refer to the - corresponding files under + license, the GNU GPL or LGPL (any version as published by the Free + Software Foundation that Debian considers free as per DFSG), should + refer to the corresponding files under <file>/usr/share/common-licenses</file>,<footnote> <p> For example, <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic</file>, <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD</file>, - <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL</file>, - <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL</file>, <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL</file>, - <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2</file>, and - <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1</file>, and so + <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-3</file>, and + <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-3</file>, and so on. Note that the GFDL is new here, and the license file may not yet be in place in <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL</file>. </p> </footnote> rather than quoting them in the copyright - file. + file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these + licenses have been published by the Free Software Foundation, + hence using the symlinks could lead to ambiguity. </p> <p>
Description: Digital signature