Re: Software Licenced Under a Specific Version of GPL
On 20010830T114438-0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Flawed assumption. I think you do Debian and the policy group
> a disservice by claiming that we shall, in the future, have such
> little regard for copyrights and installed bases.
You are being unfair. Most GPL software are licensed with version 2, or at your
option, any later version. So, for those, updating the GPL filename to refer
to GPLv3 would not be a far-off idea.
> So, GPL is likely to remain, and refer to a version 2 licence,
> for a long time, until all packages are changed.
I don't think so - look at what we did to LGPL.
> Violating policy by including the full contents of the common
> license on the assumption that future developers are going to screw
> up is not a good idea.
It is you who thinks future developers would screw up if they did what
Ari fears.
IMHO the best thing would be to introduce the GPL-2 symlink now, and not
in some far-off point in the future.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % gaia@iki.fi % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
Reply to: