On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 11:41:59PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > * W: The program is licensed under GPL version 2. > > Will not fix. From the Policy, section 12.5: > > "Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, the Artistic license, > the GNU GPL, and the GNU LGPL should refer to the files > /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD, > /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic, /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL, and > /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL respectively" > > So /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL is the right file to point to. Perhaps Policy needs an upgrade here... It seems logical to me that you must always point to the license which is used. In case of "GPL version 2 or later", that is usually understood as "the latest version of the GPL" (although of course the user may choose to use an earlier version, as long as it's at least version 2). This is what the GPL symlink is for: it always points to the latest version. A program which is "GPL v2 only" is of course not licensed under "the latest version", but under v2. The fact that they are currently the same is irrelevant: they are conceptually different. So the GPL symlink is simply the wrong thing to point at, because it isn't the license which is used (because it's "the latest version", not "version 2"). Appearantly policy isn't so clear about the /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2, but it being there strongly suggests that it should be used for programs which are licensed under "GPL v2 only". Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature