[No need to CC me] 2009/2/2 Evgeni Golov <[email protected]>: > 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
Which doesn't say a word about being able to use the work under the terms of the GNU GPL version 2 or later. And if you look closer to the typical license statement you will notice that what it says is not also included in the license file, which is why it is a requirement. > > Regards > Evgeni > Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer www.debian.org - get.debian.net Samuel Goldwyn - "I had a monumental idea this morning, but I didn't like it." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
