On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:05:32 +0200 Osamu Aoki wrote: > On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 09:47:34PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > The work is thus released under the GNU GPL (v2 or later), > > Yes absolutely.
Wonderful! :)
>
> > but some phrases
> > taken from a different license seem to have leaked into the
> > copyright notice.
>
> Please tell me which part is the "leak".
The extraneous phrases are the ones (re-)quoted below:
| Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of
| this document provided the copyright notice and this permission notice
| are preserved on all copies.
|
| Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of
| this document under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided that
| the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of
| a permission notice identical to this one.
|
| 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.
>
> > These statements have nothing to do with the GPL and it's
> > not clear if they are intended as additional permissions (some of
> > them, at least, would be unnecessary in that case) or as something
> > else.
>
> 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, but that seems to be entirely unproblematic (as long as some parts
are dual-licensed under GFDL/GPL, the recipient can choose a DFSG-free
license, i.e. the GPL, and all is fine).
>
> > 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.
> >
> > This work is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> > but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> > MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> > GNU General Public License for more details.
> >
> > You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> > along with this work; if not, write to the Free Software
> > Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA
> > 02110-1301, USA
> >
> >
> > Could you please clarify the copyright notice?
> > Thank you very much!
>
> Anyway, I wrote this text and assessed this package to be GPL2 as a
> whole. If this is sufficient explanmation, please close this bug.
As I said, if the package is under the GPLv2 (or later) without any
additional permissions, the clearest way to say so is through a clear
copyright notice.
The one I proposed above is the canonical one (just with s/program/work/
to avoid confusion).
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpQTugCu60hS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
