Re: Bug#291460: Inclusion of Apache Software License versions in /usr/share/common-licenses
Manoj Srivastava dijo [Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 09:16:17AM -0500]:
> > Of course, I'm playing with the numbers. There are still smaller
> > machines, there are the embedded-minded people, and of course, there
> > would be no sane way to verify the GPL3 was the same GPL3 all over if
> > we were to kill common-licenses - But basically, I'd not base the
> > definition in diskspace savings.
>
> Then you had better come up with a rationale for having a common
> licences directory at all. Seems to me that making binary packages
> unusable on their own (can't legally distribute without a copyright
> file; so they can only be distributed _with_ the rest of Debian) is a
> big enough obstacle that unless we have a compelling reason to have a
> common licenses directory, we should not strip out the licenses from
> packages and replace them with a pointer.
_One_ thing that makes me favor common-licenses is being able to do
wide checks to count the number of packages saying to adhere to a
given license - As I said, nothing guarantees that the COPYING file in
my (upstream) package is the same as in yours (for the very popular
GPL2), we just accept it as such. But, yes, in fact I do have a couple
of source packages around here - and their COPYING files have
different MD5s! Of course, their differences are all basically like:
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
- 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
+ 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
@@ -279,7 +279,7 @@
END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
- How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs
+ Appendix: How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs
If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
@@ -291,7 +291,7 @@
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
<one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
- Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
+ Copyright (C) 19yy <name of author>
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
@@ -305,15 +305,14 @@
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
- Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
-
+ Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
when it starts in an interactive mode:
- Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author
+ Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) 19yy name of author
Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
But, being a license text the only part of a package we accept to be
immutable.... Would it be better to change such non-substantial
portions of the license, even if they make no real difference? Hmh...
--
Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
Reply to: