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