Hi, Before discussion details of words, I would say for all practical purpose, let's drop GFDL statement from comments. When newbie document people (GFDL) was active, I thouhjt they may overtake my documents and include portions with GFDL. That is not the case. Also GPL is better and I like it.
I think this GPL statemnt may come from older version. I did not create it. Instead of arguing how current wordings are, let's agree on how best to put GPL2 statement which fits to text documents. Do you see best practice elsewhere? On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 07:11:26PM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 05:05:32PM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 09:47:34PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > Debian-reference copyright notice reads: > > > > > > This document may used under the terms the GNU General Public License > > > version 2 or higher. > > [snip] > > > > [See /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 for text of GPL v2] > > > > > > > > > The work is thus released under the GNU GPL (v2 or later), > > > > Yes absolutely. > > Ahm, why? In previous discussions you, Osamu, told me that this is not > true because of the usage of "may" in the above sentence. According to > you it's the users choice whether he want to consider the document > licensed under GPL or under the text mentioned below this sentence which > is only GPL like. It is GPL like... hmmm I took this from previous work on debian FAQ. > > If you see GFDL reference in the source sgml, it is clearly meant to be > > dual license. The thought was I wanted it to be compatible if the world > > moved to GFDL. That did not happen and it makes these words stay in the > > souce SGML only :-) Besides, Chapter 2 and other contents I borrowed > > was GPL2. So the whole documents can only be distributed as GPL2. The > > only parts I wrote can be GFDL if someone care to make it so. > > OK. When the whole documents can only be distributed as GPL2 you should > say so: True. That was sloppy. But GFDL statement is in comments and discussion with contributors. > This document s/may used/is licensed/ under the terms the GNU General Public > License > version 2 or higher. > > Or am I wrong? "may" is permission. Other license is also possible especially where I have right to do so and if I indicate so later. That is why it is not exclusively justr GPL. But I now have no plan to do so. > > > The canonical copyright notice for a work released under the GNU GPL v2 > > > or later is something along the lines of > > > > > > > > > Copyright (c) 2001-2004 Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > This work is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > > > it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by > > > the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or > > > (at your option) any later version. > > Mhh, even the official text uses "can" not "must". This means that the > user can reject the GPL license in which case no license applies and so > it is much more restrictive than GPL (no changes allowed). > > Confusing!!?? This is some loose use of colloquial American English. Since I make no statement allowing user to distribute things underr other license, practical consequence of using "must" and "can" are the same. > > > Could you please clarify the copyright notice? > > Osamu, please remember the the sentence > > Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this > document into another language, under the above conditions for modified > versions, except that this permission notice may be included in > translations approved by the Free Software Foundation instead of in the > original English. > > (which is extracted from GPL?) should be fixed, since the user doesn't > generally recognises that this is an excerpt of GPL and translation > refers to translations of GPL. > The Free Software Foundation is not responsible for Debian Reference > translations. True. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
