On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:17:52 +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote: > > The license for the packaging should not be more restrictive than the upstream > > license or the Perl license. > Hmm. What if upstream license is GPL-2-only? Can we use a more relaxed > license for the packaging? I think not. > Why not drop " or the Perl license" from the above? Hm this looks like a "translation" of the idea from the DebConf8 meeting: ~~~ * "The superset of the module license and the Perl license" seems like a good default licensing for debian/*. ~~~ Maybe someone with a better command of en_LEGAL could propose a wording that's both clear and correct? Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Home: http://info.comodo.priv.at/{,blog/} / GPG Key ID: 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/ `- NP: Bruce Springsteen: Into the Fire
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature