[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5

On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 09:06:42PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> writes:
> > On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:17:00AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >> 
> >> Instead, I think we should amend policy in this way:
> >> 
> >>   Packages under a fixed, definite version of the GPL should refer to
> >>   the versioned GPL file in /usr/share/common-licenses.
> > On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 10:21:25AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >> In other words, I think it would be ok if our copyright files were worded
> >> like this:
> >>
> >> This program is free software. It is under GPL version 2 or later. On Debian
> >> systems, the latest GPL version is in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL.
> > Ok, new proposed patch, incorporating these fixes.
> I think that this Policy bug has been addressed by the current version of
> Policy, which no longer mentions the unversioned files at all.  Please let
> me know if you disagree; otherwise, I'll close this bug.

I don't like it.  Current text seems to forbid referring to
`/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL' for a package that is licensed under
GPL version N or later.  At the very least, it should allow this.  And
preferably, mention this possibility so that it can be taken in consideration.

This is in fact a convenient practice, because it spares you the job of updating
debian/copyright every time upstream updates to a newer version of the GPL.

And everything seems to indicate future updates of the GPL will be much more
frequent than the v3 one.  At least that's what the FSF states.

Robert Millan

<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)

Reply to: