Hi >> If we'd had better foresight we would never have added BSD4 and could >> then have claimed that "BSD" covered both the 2 and 3 clause versions. >> We're not trying to nail down every last nuance in the licenses (e.g. I >> don't think we need to be trying to distinguish GPL-2 from GPL-2+). > > Sorry, as a debian maintainer I think you really do need to care about > this if you are interested in making cabal packages easily converted > into Debian packages. > > The Debian project (and therefore also Ubuntu) are real sticklers for > getting the copyright terms correct and making them well known. They > go to great lengths to distinguish between GPL2, GPL2plus and GPL3. > > Now if cabal only listed BSD, GPL and LGPL then it would fall to people > getting the LICENSE files right.
How do people modify the LICENSE file to indicate their GPL2/GPL2plus intention? From what I can see, the LICENSE file is the GPL2, and you need to say how it applies to your code - that's not something for the LICENSE file itself, but for the package metadata. Does Debian have some standard wording that applies this? I also want to know whether all the other Haskell GPL stuff is GPL2 or GPL2+ - since I might as well follow the crowd. I'll ask Malcolm :-) Thanks, Neil _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
