On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:26:37 -0600 Raphael Geissert wrote: > > > > I suspect there's still arguably a bug in such a package, since this would > > imply that the upstream license statement wasn't cut and pasted into the > > debian/copyright file, as is recommended best practice even with the new > > copyright format. If it were, that phrase would still be there. > > Exactly. "License: GPL-2+" isn't a replacement of license statement as it has > no > meaning. IANAL but I would say it doesn't mean anything, just like "(C)" is > not > considered to mean "Copyright".
Right, thats why one writes at the end of the file: License: GPL-2+ On Debian Systems ... /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL Regards Evgeni -- ^^^ | Evgeni -SargentD- Golov ([email protected]) d(O_o)b | GPG/PGP-Key-ID: 0xAC15B50C >-|-< | 0C04 F872 0963 ADC9 AA83 882B 24A0 1418 AC15 B50C / \ | http://www.die-welt.net - [email protected] Kernel panic: Could not determine whether bit was one, zero or sqrt (1/PI)... (Jan Kohnert - debian-user-german) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
