Re: copyright file problems
On Sat, Dec 04, 1999 at 11:55:34AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 08:02:05PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 07:29:58PM +0100, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> > > Since I started working on the ftp archive, I've found at least three
> > > packages in incoming which come with a licence like this:
> > >
> > > This library is free software; you can redistribute it
> > > and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself.
> > `The same licence as perl' is one of the most popular license in
> > the free world. And I like it because I dont have to look
> > into every perl module's copyright for 2 pages of text, which
> > points you to 2 other licenses and then explains how to
> > use one of them.
> Isn't that sweet?
> > You shouldnt shut down packages just for using this
> > without prior consensus that this practice have to be finished.
> > There is neither consensus nor even a discusion on this topic !
> > If you really find the same as perl licence a problem, submit
> > as wishlist bug to package containing `/usr/share/common-licenses/'
> Or, alternately, you (or the applicable maintainer/s) shouldn't add
> incomplete license terms in /usr/doc/*/copyright without prior consensus,
> or without starting an open discussion on the matter, or should consider
> filing a wishlist bug to get it added to /usr/share/common-licenses.
> Sheesh. The ftp-maintainers aren't meant to do everything for you. Get
> off their backs.
> aj, who thinks having it added to /usr/share/common-licenses would probably
> be reasonable.
I do !