On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 08:02:05PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote: > On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 07:29:58PM +0100, Gergely Madarasz wrote: > > Since I started working on the ftp archive, I've found at least three > > packages in incoming which come with a licence like this: > > > > This library is free software; you can redistribute it > > and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. > `The same licence as perl' is one of the most popular license in > the free world. And I like it because I dont have to look > into every perl module's copyright for 2 pages of text, which > points you to 2 other licenses and then explains how to > use one of them.
Isn't that sweet?
> You shouldnt shut down packages just for using this
> without prior consensus that this practice have to be finished.
> There is neither consensus nor even a discusion on this topic !
> If you really find the same as perl licence a problem, submit
> as wishlist bug to package containing `/usr/share/common-licenses/'
Or, alternately, you (or the applicable maintainer/s) shouldn't add
incomplete license terms in /usr/doc/*/copyright without prior consensus,
or without starting an open discussion on the matter, or should consider
filing a wishlist bug to get it added to /usr/share/common-licenses.
Sheesh. The ftp-maintainers aren't meant to do everything for you. Get
off their backs.
Cheers,
aj, who thinks having it added to /usr/share/common-licenses would probably
be reasonable.
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
pgpg5xRg5PUDJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
