Hi Helge!
(Taking off bug-texinfo and Karl for now)
On Die, 08 Aug 2006, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> > The thing is, that text for --version comes straight from the GNU coding
> > standards. I wouldn't want to change it without consulting rms (and
> > changing standards.texi). Sigh. Is it worth it?
>
> This is up to Debian to decide how to treat this ambiguity. I
> personally would prefer the programm to be precise, i.e. knowing the
> license without downloading the source. For Debian, the inclusion of
> COPYING (or a clear reference to the Debian version of it, i.e. the
> already shipped GPL) could be a workaround for the moment, together
> with debian/copyright this would clear the issue. But Debian might
> also decide that *only* debian/copyright is relevant to the end user,
> then this bug would become wishlist from my side.
So if I extend the debian/copyright file to explicitely mention that
the statement of info --version does not specify the GPL version, and
that is GPLv2 as given in ...., would this be a solution to downgrade
the bug to wishlist and see what rms/fsf decide on the wording?
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining <preining AT logic DOT at> Università di Siena
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TINGRITH (n.)
The feeling of silver paper against your fillings.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
