Hello, On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 12:55:49PM -0500, Karl Berry wrote: > > Also here the "version 2 or (at your option) any later version" is > > missing. Thats what caused me to open this bug: both the man page *and* > > the program claim only GPL (which implies version 1). > > I'm not sure if making that inference is 100% necessary :).
Especially in the context of the new GPL I think more and more people will look at the version of the GPL (e.g. think about the Linux kernel). And it is unclear for me that a pure "GPL" refers to version 2. > 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. > By the way, virtually every GNU package seems to do --version a slightly > different way, and I haven't found any that explicitly say GPL v2; many > don't even mention the GPL at all. I expect the situation is even more > chaotic for non-GNU packages. So changing Texinfo is just the tip of > the iceberg ... Then this topic should be discussed in an appropriate form at some time, so that a consensus can be found how to treat this problem (both in upstream as well as within Debian). Thanks for your analysis. 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