On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:54:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Given that, while I'm very sympathetic to Santiago's argument, I also > think that we should be able to represent in packages their upstream > licensing statement and not be implicitly relicensing them under later > versions of the GPL, Ack, pointing to the -GPL symlink (and relying (and therefore relicensing) on the "or later" aspect) doesn't feel right to me; and it also involves coming up with lintian patches every now and then when the wording for "same as Perl" changes. > I therefore propose adding GPL version 1 to the list of licenses said by > Policy to be in common-licenses and asking Santiago to include a copy in > base-files. I'm not including a diff since it would just create merge > conflicts with the BSD diff proposed earlier today and because it's fairly > obvious, although I can if people would prefer. > > Objections or seconds? Seconded. > Copying debian-perl on this message since that's the set of developers who > are most affected by this. Thanks! (Although that means some changes on our part, in dh-make-perl and in most of our packages :)) Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: U2: With Or Without You
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature