On Tue 2008-09-09 12:01:23 -0400, Simon Josefsson wrote: > I tried to do some systematic searches, but the debian copyright > information tends to be incorrect (not mentioning versions) or difficult > to parse.
This is sadly true. Automatic resolution of this sort of question would be much easier if the machine-readable debian/copyright proposal was more widely-adopted: http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat > I recognize cups, snort and ekg, and they are fairly well known. fwiw, gobby seems to be GPL-2+, not GPL-2, at least according to the debian copyright info, so it's possilbe that the fedora tags are wrong on that package: [0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ grep -A5 ^License: /usr/share/doc/libobby-0.4-1/copyright License: This library is written by the 0x539 dev group and is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 or any later version. A copy of the license is included in the distribution. [0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ And cups appears to be ambiguous as far as the GPL'ed bits (though the LGPL'ed bits are pretty clearly V2-only): [0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ grep -A6 ^INTRODUCTION /usr/share/doc/cups-common/copyright INTRODUCTION The Common UNIX Printing System(tm), ("CUPS(tm)"), is provided under the GNU General Public License ("GPL") and GNU Library General Public License ("LGPL"), Version 2, with exceptions for Apple operating systems and the OpenSSL toolkit. A copy of the exceptions and licenses follow this introduction. [0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ I couldn't come up with an automated way to pull the answers to these questions out of debian automatically either :( --dkg
pgplH6nsr33CC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Help-gnutls mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnutls
