Sorry for replying to this, I am not a DD, technically just a user. I am not a lawyer either, so sorry for discussing licensing topics. This e-mail is about freedom, not law.
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 05:43:27PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: ... > "packages under `GPL or later' should refer to the latest GPL version > which is always at [current location], packages under a specific version > of GPL should refer to the exact license under /usr/share/common-licenses > if it still exists, or include the complete text of the GPL version under > which they are distributed if it does no longer exists" > [ Perhaps the same could be said for the LGPL licenses ]. I believe this would be an unfair restriction on the users. Here is the argument Suppose package X is licensed under "GPL version 1 or later". As long as this text remains on the package, each recipient has the freedom to use it *at his/hers option* under GPL 1, 2 or 3 (or later). Suppose by an act of packaging Debian licenses the packaged (and usually slightly modified) X.deb as "GPL version 2 or later". The packager has unnecessarily taken away the freedom of the user to use the resulting .deb file under GPL version 1, if he so chooses. The maintainer *can* do this, because as copyright holder on his changes he can license the changes any way he wants, and because his redistribution rights under "1, 2, 3 or later" include the right to modify and redistribute under "2, 3 or later". Suppose the maintainer of base-files, or the project as an organization automatically changes the file or symlink GPL2-or-later to GPL3-or-later. Then the project is effectively doing this for ALL packages at the same time. For packages distributed through master.debian.org this could be seen as a decision to exercise Debian's redistribution rights only under GPL3 or later, but it still seems to be an unnecessary restriction on the freedom on the users. So as a user I would prefer that the project does NOT roll forward the minimum version number in licenses specifying "GPL version X or later" to "GPL version X+1 or later". On the same note, I would prefer if maintainers who add a few lines of packaging to a "BSD no advertisement" program not restrict the package by placing their 100 lines under GPL. But again this is just my preference of freedom. Keep up the good work, I just love this system Jakob. -- This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings, do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue. Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.
