Don Armstrong said: > On Thu, 22 May 2003, Nick Phillips wrote: >> I would assert, though, that it is possible to phrase one's >> construction such that it is not reasonable to argue about it. > > Sure. I think most of us would agree that an unequivocally proper > phrasing of such a construction is to rewrite the entire license. > There may be less strenuous proper phrasings, but I can't think of one > that addresses all of my concerns.
And, in fact, that rewritten license should be what's in /usr/share/doc/packagename/copyright, not the GNU GPL. The copyright file should have the license that applies to the work. Not a "read the copyright file and apply this patch" statement in the README file (or worse, in about.html on the author's website, or in an email message) --Joe