Bug#420701: GFDL is now in common-licenses
Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Giacomo A Catenazzi <email@example.com> writes:
>> I think we should add also the license version in the first paragraph,
>> as is stated in the second part, not to confuse users.
>> + license, the GNU GPL (v. 2), the GNU LGPL (v. 2 and v. 2.1), and
>> the GNU FDL should refer
>> + to the corresponding files under
> Agreed. Here's a new patch. Note that this removes the unversioned
> licenses from the non-normative footnote; that's not a normative change
> yet, but I do want to discuss that separately under Bug#431109.
How about fixing the stylistic issue of saying 'For example, ..., and so
on.'? Actually, the filenames doesn't strike me as examples at all.
How about 'In particular, /usr/..., respectively.' instead? And make
sure the paths are given in the same order as the text.
Btw, the path to the LGPL v2.0 license is missing.
> --- orig/policy.sgml
> +++ mod/policy.sgml
> @@ -8653,21 +8653,18 @@
> Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, the Artistic
> - license, the GNU GPL, and the GNU LGPL, should refer to the
> + license, the GNU GPL (version 2), the GNU LGPL (versions 2 and
> + 2.1), and the GNU FDL (version 1.2) should refer to the
> corresponding files under
> For example,
> - <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL</file>,
> - <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL</file>,
> - <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL</file>,
> - <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2</file>, and
> - <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1</file>, and so
> - on. Note that the GFDL is new here, and the license file
> - may not yet be in place in
> - <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL</file>.
> + <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2</file>,
> + <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1</file>,
> + <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL-1.2</file>, and so
> + on.
> </footnote> rather than quoting them in the copyright
> Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>