Bug#436105: suggestion to add GPL-1 as a common licence
On 11.06.2010 13:16, Andrew McMillan wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:35 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Ok, I agree that it would a good idea to include GPL-1 in common-licenses
because of the high number of packages still using it.
I'm sorry, but I disagree, for the time being. I do not believe that
large numbers of packages are deliberately using GPL v1, and I think
that anyone who is needs to confirm that explicitly since (I hope) many
of them have moved on to less broken licenses such as GPL3 or GPL2.
Yes for new code, but old code cannot be relicensed easily:
all authors should agree, but GPLv1 is very old, in periods
where contribution did not have an email and "fix" (live-long)
email address was not common.
and OTOH the unversioned GPL notices means any GPL license.
[both for old programs and for "careless" new developement.
BTW unilaterally moving "version 1 and any later versio" to
"version 2 [or 3] and later later" is against the GPL.
So I think that GPLv1 will remain important for the time being,
and I would include it in common-license.