Software Licenced Under a Specific Version of GPL
Hello, I've packaged a piece of my own software which is licenced under GNU GPL version 2. I'm not yet a Debian developer but a developer is going to advocate. One of the things he asked me to do was to ask from debian-policy what to do in situations like this. lintian complains: $ lintian -i dbmanage_1.0.1-3_i386.changes E: dbmanage: copyright-file-contains-full-gpl-license N: N: The copyright file /usr/share/doc/pkg/copyright contains the N: complete text of the GPL. It should refer to the file N: /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL instead. N: Refer to Policy Manual, section 13.6 for details. N: I don't like the idea of licencing my software under a licence I cannot know because it doesn't even exist so I tend to use GPL version 2. So should I just ignore the error message or should there be file /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2? -- #!/usr/bin/perl -w -- Ari Makela [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # http://arska.org/hauva/ # # Sailing is, after all, a kind of grace, a kind of magic. - Phil Berman
Re: Software Licenced Under a Specific Version of GPL
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 11:12:41AM +0300, Ari Makela wrote: :lintian complains: : :$ lintian -i dbmanage_1.0.1-3_i386.changes :E: dbmanage: copyright-file-contains-full-gpl-license :N: :N: The copyright file /usr/share/doc/pkg/copyright contains the :N: complete text of the GPL. It should refer to the file :N: /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL instead. :N: Refer to Policy Manual, section 13.6 for details. :N: : :I don't like the idea of licencing my software under a licence I :cannot know because it doesn't even exist so I tend to use GPL version :2. $ head -3 /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 -Jon
Re: Software Licenced Under a Specific Version of GPL
On 20010830T084026-0400, Jonathan D. Proulx wrote: $ head -3 /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 Yes, but that will probably not be true forever. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
Re: Software Licenced Under a Specific Version of GPL
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 04:18:35PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: :On 20010830T084026-0400, Jonathan D. Proulx wrote: : $ head -3 /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL : GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE :Version 2, June 1991 : :Yes, but that will probably not be true forever. Forever is a long time. If you refer to the file system location, that's part of maintaining a package. I suspect you mean the GPL version. Typically licensing is GPL v2 or later, which this (I presume) will track. If you want to specificly use v2 only, a qustion comes up that I don't know the answer to. Is the or later clause part of the GPL? -Jon
Re: Software Licenced Under a Specific Version of GPL
Jonathan D. Proulx writes: On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 11:12:41AM +0300, Ari Makela wrote: $ head -3 /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 Yes, indeed, but that's not what I ment. I'm sorry, my email was rather obscure in retrospect. The file now includes GPL version 2 but probably not in future Debian releases. And what if my package is installed in such a future release? It'll have a wrong licence. -- #!/usr/bin/perl -w -- Ari Makela [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # http://arska.org/hauva/ # # Sailing is, after all, a kind of grace, a kind of magic. - Phil Berman
Request For Information
Hello, Could you please direct this request to the proper party or department? We would like to get some additional information about your business in an effort to explore the ways that we might be able to work together. If possible, we would like to receive your media package. If you have an interest, please respond to the address below, or visit our web site. Please send to: If by e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If by mail: WebStream Internet Solutions Outsourcing Department 2200 W.Commercial Blvd. Suite 204 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309 USA Thank you very much. Josh Winters [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://webstream.net Design * Programming * Virtual and Dedicated Server Hosting Since 1997
Re: Software Licenced Under a Specific Version of GPL
Jonathan D. Proulx (2001-08-30 09:47:16 -0400) : Is the or later clause part of the GPL? No. It is suggested in the GPL, but no more. , | 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions | of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will | be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to | address new problems or concerns. | | Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program | specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and any | later version, you have the option of following the terms and conditions | either of that version or of any later version published by the Free | Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of | this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software | Foundation. ` Roland. -- Roland Mas [...] Des fois, y'a des trous. -- (Ptiluc) -- Signatures à collectionner, série n°2, partie 3/3.
Re: Software Licenced Under a Specific Version of GPL
Jonathan D. Proulx writes: Forever is a long time. If you refer to the file system location, that's part of maintaining a package. But many packages can be installed to a older or newer versions of Debian. That's why one cannot simply assume the file includes version 2. I suspect you mean the GPL version. Typically licensing is GPL v2 or later, which this (I presume) will track. If you want to specificly use v2 only, a qustion comes up that I don't know the answer to. Is the or later clause part of the GPL? or later is customary but it is not part of the licence. It's a part of the statement that the software is licenced under GPL. GPL version 2 states: clip If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and any later version, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. /clip This implies that or later is not mandatory. -- #!/usr/bin/perl -w -- Ari Makela [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # http://arska.org/hauva/ # # Sailing is, after all, a kind of grace, a kind of magic. - Phil Berman
Re: Software Licenced Under a Specific Version of GPL
On 30-Aug-01, 03:12 (CDT), Ari Makela [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't like the idea of licencing my software under a licence I cannot know because it doesn't even exist so I tend to use GPL version 2. So should I just ignore the error message or should there be file /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2? Put in your packages copyright file something like: This package is covered by the GPL v2. That file should be available as /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL. If that file not there, or is not version 2 of the GPL, please write [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy of the correct license. (Or put a web address, or refer to the FSF website, or somesuch.) Hopefully, when Debian starts including GPL v3, we'll name /u/s/c-l/GPL3, and leave GPL v2 where it is. Steve
Re: Software Licenced Under a Specific Version of GPL
Ari == Ari Makela [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ari The file now includes GPL version 2 but probably not in future Debian Ari releases. And what if my package is installed in such a future Ari release? It'll have a wrong licence. Flawed assumption. I think you do Debian and the policy group a disservice by claiming that we shall, in the future, have such little regard for copyrights and installed bases. When GPL v3 does role around, it shall probably go into GPL-V3; and at the same time we shall have GPL-V23, with the GPL being a symlink pointing to GPL-V2. At this point, there shall be a policy directive asking people to rewrite the readme/copyright files to point to the non-symlink license; and, when there is no package remaining, shall the file GPL be removed. So, GPL is likely to remain, and refer to a version 2 licence, for a long time, until all packages are changed. Violating policy by including the full contents of the common license on the assumption that future developers are going to screw up is not a good idea. manoj -- Change your thoughts and you change your world. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Software Licenced Under a Specific Version of GPL
On 20010830T114438-0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Flawed assumption. I think you do Debian and the policy group a disservice by claiming that we shall, in the future, have such little regard for copyrights and installed bases. You are being unfair. Most GPL software are licensed with version 2, or at your option, any later version. So, for those, updating the GPL filename to refer to GPLv3 would not be a far-off idea. So, GPL is likely to remain, and refer to a version 2 licence, for a long time, until all packages are changed. I don't think so - look at what we did to LGPL. Violating policy by including the full contents of the common license on the assumption that future developers are going to screw up is not a good idea. It is you who thinks future developers would screw up if they did what Ari fears. IMHO the best thing would be to introduce the GPL-2 symlink now, and not in some far-off point in the future. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
Re: Software Licenced Under a Specific Version of GPL
Manoj Srivastava writes: a disservice by claiming that we shall, I feel disservice is rather strongly said. Well, maybe I'm a little touchy here. little regard for copyrights and installed bases. One of the many reasons I've been using Debian since version 1.2 is that Debian does respect copyrights. Violating policy by including the full contents of the common license on the assumption that future developers are going to screw up is not a good idea. I asked because *I* didn't want to screw up my package. I've thought for years that Debian is in many ways the nicest OS for i386 (and of course for some other platforms) and when I've made packages I've tried to keep up the quality that Debian has. That's why I ask when I feel unsure what to do. I got some good advice and I'm going to follow it. I'm going to write a new file which says that /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL should have GPL version 2 and if it doesn't doesn't the user can get it from foo. If someone thinks this is a bad idea I'm open to other ideas. -- #!/usr/bin/perl -w -- Ari Makela [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # http://arska.org/hauva/ # # Sailing is, after all, a kind of grace, a kind of magic. - Phil Berman
Re: Software Licenced Under a Specific Version of GPL
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 11:44:38AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Ari == Ari Makela [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ari The file now includes GPL version 2 but probably not in future Debian Ari releases. And what if my package is installed in such a future Ari release? It'll have a wrong licence. Flawed assumption. I think you do Debian and the policy group a disservice by claiming that we shall, in the future, have such little regard for copyrights and installed bases. Actually, I think the whole discussion has been a bit off point. As I read the original email, the developer wanted to release the package under GPL with the 'or later version' clause removed. This is no longer a verbatim copy of the GPL. In such a case, should the packager include the entire _modified_ GPL, or include the original GPL with a rider clause in COPYRIGHT? Or, should the GPL with 'or later version' removed be included in common licenses? After all, as I recall, the kernel itself is now distributed with such a license! Jim Penny -- Change your thoughts and you change your world. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Software Licenced Under a Specific Version of GPL
Antti-Juhani == Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Antti-Juhani On 20010830T114438-0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Flawed assumption. I think you do Debian and the policy group a disservice by claiming that we shall, in the future, have such little regard for copyrights and installed bases. Antti-Juhani You are being unfair. Most GPL software are licensed Antti-Juhani with version 2, or at your option, any later version. Antti-Juhani So, for those, updating the GPL filename to refer to Antti-Juhani GPLv3 would not be a far-off idea. Yes, it would, since we would be violating the terms of the packages that do _not_ want later versions; and if people in charge of policy when GPL v3 comes out do not take care of this, they shall be screwing up. I, however, have full faith in our succesors, and I am not going to assume they shall just follow the masses and the hell with the details philosophy. So, GPL is likely to remain, and refer to a version 2 licence, for a long time, until all packages are changed. Antti-Juhani I don't think so - look at what we did to LGPL. Point taken. We4 did screw up, unless someone already has taken steps to look at the LGPL licences and fix all those who did not want later versions. Are you sure this step was not taken? Can you point me to any instances where the symlink causes us to mis represent any package? Violating policy by including the full contents of the common license on the assumption that future developers are going to screw up is not a good idea. Antti-Juhani It is you who thinks future developers would screw up Antti-Juhani if they did what Ari fears. If they do what Ari fears, it shall be a screw up -- we should not mis represent licenses, and we should not point people to licenses that do not conform to what the upstream author intends the license to be. Are you implying that sdhall not be a screw up? Antti-Juhani IMHO the best thing would be to introduce the GPL-2 Antti-Juhani symlink now, and not in some far-off point in the Antti-Juhani future. Please file a wish list bug against the relevant package. manoj -- Whether in the village or the forest, whether on high ground or low, wherever the enlightened live, that is a delightful spot. 98 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Software Licenced Under a Specific Version of GPL
Ari Makela wrote: I asked because *I* didn't want to screw up my package. I've thought for years that Debian is in many ways the nicest OS for i386 (and of course for some other platforms) and when I've made packages I've tried to keep up the quality that Debian has. That's why I ask when I feel unsure what to do. I got some good advice and I'm going to follow it. I'm going to write a new file which says that /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL should have GPL version 2 and if it doesn't doesn't the user can get it from foo. If someone thinks this is a bad idea I'm open to other ideas. What you want to do seems perfectly reasonable to me, i.e. wishing to refer to a particular version of the GPL. I can see from various public forums that this way of using the GPL is likely to happen more often too. My belief is that the best approach would be to have /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL symbolically linked in a manner similar to library versions. This will mean that someone wishing to specify a particular version of the GPL can do so by a further symlink to the correct version. I can't see that this either (a) makes things worse, (b) is hard, or (c) is unreasonable. To make it happen you should file a wishlist bug against the package which provides the GPL, asking it to provide it as a versioned file and symlink /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL to the most recent version. Regards, Andrew. -- _ Andrew McMillan, e-mail: Andrew @ catalyst . net . nz Catalyst IT Ltd, PO Box 10-225, Level 22, 105 The Terrace, Wellington Me: +64(21)635-694, Fax:+64(4)499-5596, Office: +64(4)499-2267xtn709
Bug#110713: java-compiler and java-virtual-machine missing from virtual-package-names-list.text.gz
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.1.1.1 Virtual packages java-compiler and java-virtual-machine, mentioned in java-common/policy.html, are not included in debian-policy/virtual-package-names-list.text.gz (The java-common policy still claims the status PROPOSED, but both virtual packages are already used, e.g. by package java-virtual-machine-dummy.)
Bug#110711: Incorrect references to 'package-developer'
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.1.1.1 In debian-policy/policy.html, under headings 2.3.5 Virtual packages, 3.6 Menus and 3.7 Multimedia handlers there are references to /debian/doc/package-developer/, but the files referenced there seem to be part of debian-policy. package-developer does not exist.
Re: Software Licenced Under a Specific Version of GPL
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 03:04:52PM -0400, Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say: Flawed assumption. I think you do Debian and the policy group a disservice by claiming that we shall, in the future, have such little regard for copyrights and installed bases. Actually, I think the whole discussion has been a bit off point. As I read the original email, the developer wanted to release the package under GPL with the 'or later version' clause removed. This is no longer a verbatim copy of the GPL. In such a case, should the packager include the entire _modified_ GPL, or include the original GPL with a rider clause in COPYRIGHT? The or later version text is only found in a suggestion about how to apply the GPL to your own code. The license itself only says this: Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and any later version, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. (or, as is the case with the Linux kernel, you can specify one GPL version, period. Given the increasing RMS is a looney ranting commie pinko nutcase rhetoric in some places, I suppose we'll have to deal with this more often in the future..) At least, that's what a non-lawyer thinks. Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---\ | You mean, you'll drop your rock and | | I'll drop my sword and we'll just try to | | kill one another like civilized people? | |-- The Princess Bride | \ Be like the kid in the movie! Play chess! -- http://www.uschess.org ---/
Re: Software Licenced Under a Specific Version of GPL
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:47:51PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote: On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 03:04:52PM -0400, Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say: Actually, I think the whole discussion has been a bit off point. As I read the original email, the developer wanted to release the package under GPL with the 'or later version' clause removed. This is no longer a verbatim copy of the GPL. In such a case, should the packager include the entire _modified_ GPL, or include the original GPL with a rider clause in COPYRIGHT? The or later version text is only found in a suggestion about how to apply the GPL to your own code. The license itself only says this: Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and any later version, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. I entirely concur with this. I wouldn't ordinarily send a me too message, but the assertion that removing or any later version violates the copyright on the GPL license text is completely erroneous. Where the language at issue appears is along with the copyright notice on the software, not inside the GPL license text itself. -- G. Branden Robinson| When I die I want to go peacefully Debian GNU/Linux | in my sleep like my ol' Grand [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Dad...not screaming in terror like http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | his passengers. pgpF10DhwTowP.pgp Description: PGP signature
