Hello Norbert, On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 12:18:16AM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote: > (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?
Yes, because then I (or some other reader) knows that this is no
oversight by the package manager but an upstream problem. Maybe you
mention that upstreams COPYING simply contains the GPL v.2.
Thanks for taking care.
Greetings
Helge
--
Dr. Helge Kreutzmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php
64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred
Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
