On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 12:04:48PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > I think the best way is to include the license text in debian/copyright > > just like any other license that is not in common-licenses. > > We probably don't really want to include a copy of the GPLv1 in every Perl > package. If the license is used in many packages, we should add it to common-licenses. If it isn't, then it should be no problem to include it in debian/copyright. Technical arguments are very weak for arguing that we should remove a choice from our users IMO. The only valid argument I can think of is "it's better for free software if they can't choose GPL-1." Arguing that must be done on philosophical grounds. RMS does this, in his attempts to move people to use the newest version of the GPL. He has a point, but if Debian would fully agree with it, I suppose we would relicense all GPL works as GPL version 3 or later when possible. Since we don't, I don't see why we should change "GPL 1 or later" to "GPL 2 or later". Certainly not on the ground of it being too hard to think of how to write down the licensing terms... 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://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature