Santiago Vila wrote: > The wording will not change, but the meaning *will*.
It is sort of the idea behind the GPL that the meaning of saying "GPL" will change whenever the FSF updates. > I do not decide policy. It should be at least debian-policy who > decides about accepting the GPL3 or not. > > Currently, I'm considering a debian-policy ammendment with 0-patch > which just changes the *meaning*. Would you second it? Well, here is the current situation as I see it. I package software foo which is licensed under the GPL version 3 (or later, FWIW). The policy says that packages under the GPL should reference the common-licenses directory, and clearly my package foo falls under that regulation. I point to common-licenses, but the license I would legally need is not there. The failure in this system, as I see it, is not in the policy. The policy says, if you have one of these licenses, point to them in base-files. It would then be the obligation of the base-files package to provide all licenses that packagers would validly want to point to. The only excuse would be to claim that the GPL version 3 is not covered by the wording "GPL" in the policy, which I cannot understand. I don't think anyone would reasonably doubt that the GPL version 3 should eventually end up as a common license, not matter what procedure it takes to get there. So if you're not sure, just ask the policy editors informally, and I'm sure it'll all be sorted out quickly. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
