Hello Markus, On Wed, Dec 13 2017, Markus Koschany wrote: >> This would mean that we are not explicitly stating in our d/copyright >> file the difference between GPL-2 and GPL-2+. To learn of the >> difference, a user would need to view the full spec of the copyright >> format. > > IMO this is already the case. What we do right now and what is > accepted by the ftp-master is, that we write for GPL-2 and GPL-2+ in > one package: > > License: GPL-2 > On Debian systems the full text of the GPL-2 can be found in > /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 > > > License: GPL-2+ > On Debian systems the full text of the GPL-2 can be found in > /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 I am surprised to hear that this is accepted by ftp-master. Would you mind pointing to an example package? ISTM that the text must explain what the '+' means to be acceptable, but I am not an ftp-master. > I don't think it is a burden to take a look at the copyright format > 1.0 specification. It requires Internet access, though. One of the reasons we ship uncompressed d/copyright with every binary package is so that the copyright information is available offline; if we're not explaining what the '+' means, that's no longer true. That's what I mean by a regression. > If the Policy editors cannot make a decision with regards to > debian/copyright then we should ask the DPL to seek legal advice and > when necessary start a GR for reasons of legitimacy. If we think this issue is important enough to spend money on that. I am not convinced it is. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature