Le Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 08:30:53PM +0100, Nicholas Bamber a écrit : > The package maintainer wants the following stanza > > > Copyright: (C) 1995-1998, 2000, 2003-2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > License: GFDL-1.1+ > Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document > under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or > any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no > Invariant Sections, with the Front-Cover texts being ``A GNU Manual,'' > and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below. > . > On Debian systems, the full text of the GNU Free Documentation License > version 1.2 can be found in `/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL-1.2'. > > If it were me I would have them match.
Dear Nicholas, this is very similar to the past situation for many perl modules, licensed under same terms as Perl itself, that is Artistic or GPL-1+. For a long time, Debian did not distribute a copy of the GPL version 1 in /usr/share/common-licenses (http://bugs.debian.org/436105), and it was accepted to refer to other versions of the GPL instead. Nevertheless, the GPL-1 was eventually added to /usr/share/common-licenses, and some packages use this facility. My personal opinion is that the paragraph as written above is inconsistent: it says that license is version A, and points at version B. In general, I tend to put sentences that point at /usr/share/common-licenses/ in a separate ‘Comment’ header, since anyway it does not belong to the original text. Lastly, if the original upstream sources do include a copy of the GFDL-1.1, my personal opinion is that it would be a good practice to include it. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
