[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#436105: suggestion to add GPL-1 as a common licence

On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 10:58 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Andrew McMillan <andrew@morphoss.com> writes:
> > 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.
> Hi Andrew,
> Did the subsequent discussion resolve your concerns about including the
> GPL v1 in common-licenses?  I do think there are a lot of packages that
> are explicitly distributed under GPL v1 or later due to the Perl licensing
> situation.

I guess this is the status quo, so we should continue with it.  The
weight of opinion seems against me :-)


andrew (AT) morphoss (DOT) com                            +64(272)DEBIAN
              Does the turtle move for you?  www.kame.net

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: