Hi Dne Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:41:43 +0200 Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de> napsal(a): > Hello Michal, > > On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 22:07 +0200, Michal Čihař wrote: > > > > > - also license information in debian/copyright does not seem to be > > > > sufficient, you should be more detailed (or use new machine readable > > > > format, see http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat) > > > > > > Thanks a lot for this pointer. I've completely rewritten the copyright > > > file. One question though: Do I actually have to include the license > > > text for popular licenses? (in this case: GPL-any) > > > > Why do you use some random older revision of proposal? > > I'm afraid I don't understand. I am using the proposal from the page you > were referring. Other than the revision number from the example in the > proposal, I have no idea which newer revisions could possibly exist. You should point Format-Specification to version of wiki page you based your copyright file on. I guess it is current one, so there should be http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat?action=recall&rev=226 > > > Yes you should include something like: > > > > License-Terms: GPL-2 > > On Debian and Debian-based systems, a copy of the GNU General Public > > License version 2 is available in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2. > > Ok, thanks. The problem is, there is no text for 'GPL-any'. I am > inclined to write something to the effect of: > > "On Debian and Debian-based systems, a copy of the GNU General Public > Licenses are available in /usr/share/common-licenses." > > Would this be ok? I added this only as an example. There is also example for GPL-any on the wiki page, why to reinvent the wheel? Anyway to me it looks more like your package is GPL-2+. -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature