Giacomo A Catenazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think we should add also the license version in the first paragraph,
> as is stated in the second part, not to confuse users.
> + license, the GNU GPL (v. 2), the GNU LGPL (v. 2 and v. 2.1), and
> the GNU FDL should refer
> + to the corresponding files under
Agreed. Here's a new patch. Note that this removes the unversioned
licenses from the non-normative footnote; that's not a normative change
yet, but I do want to discuss that separately under Bug#431109.
--- orig/policy.sgml
+++ mod/policy.sgml
@@ -8653,21 +8653,18 @@
<p>
Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, the Artistic
- license, the GNU GPL, and the GNU LGPL, should refer to the
+ license, the GNU GPL (version 2), the GNU LGPL (versions 2 and
+ 2.1), and the GNU FDL (version 1.2) should refer to the
corresponding files under
<file>/usr/share/common-licenses</file>,<footnote>
<p>
For example,
<file>/usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic</file>,
<file>/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD</file>,
- <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL</file>,
- <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL</file>,
- <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL</file>,
- <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2</file>, and
- <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1</file>, and so
- on. Note that the GFDL is new here, and the license file
- may not yet be in place in
- <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL</file>.
+ <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2</file>,
+ <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1</file>,
+ <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL-1.2</file>, and so
+ on.
</p>
</footnote> rather than quoting them in the copyright
file.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
