On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 17:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > Hello. > > If the consensus is that GFDL 1.3 is as DFSG-compliant as it 1.2 was, > then I would like to include it in common-licenses in base-files for lenny > (in addition to 1.2, that is) as a "bonus". > > Reasons: > > * The symlink GFDL is supposed to point to the latest version available. > * Works under GFDL-1.2 (not "1.2 or newer") should not refer to the > symlink but to the versioned license "GFDL-1.2". > * It will make copyright-file compliance easier for packages in backports. > No need to update base-files in backports.org just to add a new license > as it happened in etch. > > So, if you have a strong reason why this should not be done, please speak now. > This is not a strong feeling, simply a comment: I find it strange to add a licence that was created with a very specific goal in mind (relicencing wikipedia) which will expire in 9 months (August next year). kk > Thanks. > > -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian user / gNewSense contributor http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part