Hello Norbert,
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 12:18:16AM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
(Taking off bug-texinfo and Karl for now)
On Die, 08 Aug 2006, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
The thing is, that text for --version comes straight from the GNU coding
standards. I wouldn't want to change it
On Mit, 09 Aug 2006, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
So if I extend the debian/copyright file to explicitely mention that
the statement of info --version does not specify the GPL version, and
that is GPLv2 as given in , would this be a solution to downgrade
the bug to wishlist and see what
Hello Norbert,
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
Do you consider this enough information:
--
The file COPYING referred to in the ouput of info --version and in the
man page of info contains the GPLv2 as found in
`/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL'. Although
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 06:46:20PM -0500, Karl Berry wrote:
I assume that info is also GPLv2 as I stated in the copyright file, and
Yes, of course.
Great.
The man pages are generated with help2man, so they don't really have an
independently copyrightable existence. It is not
Hi Karl!
Sorry to bother you with all this. At the end of the email there are
some unrelated infos for you.
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006, Karl Berry wrote:
under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
any
That sound fine for me. But also if you issue:
info --version
Oh. My mistake. help2man just includes the output of --version, I
forgot that.
Also here the version 2 or (at your option) any later version is
missing. Thats what caused me to open this bug: both the man page
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 12:55:49PM -0500, Karl Berry wrote:
Also here the version 2 or (at your option) any later version is
missing. Thats what caused me to open this bug: both the man page *and*
the program claim only GPL (which implies version 1).
I'm not sure if
Hi Helge,
Then this topic should be discussed in an appropriate form at some
I know of no appropriate forum, but I'll ask rms at some point about
changing and standardizing the wording of --version output for GNU
packages.
Best,
karl
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Hi Helge!
(Taking off bug-texinfo and Karl for now)
On Die, 08 Aug 2006, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
The thing is, that text for --version comes straight from the GNU coding
standards. I wouldn't want to change it without consulting rms (and
changing standards.texi). Sigh. Is it worth it?
Hi Norbert,
Maybe this email got lost somewhere, so
Sorry, I've been away.
Since the file COPYING is not shipped by Debian, I could not check
there.
Of course the COPYING file in Texinfo is just the GPL, as it is in
virtually every (original) GNU distribution. Changing every
Hi all texinfo gurus!
Maybe this email got lost somewhere, so
On Fre, 28 Jul 2006, preining wrote:
Hi Karl!
We got notified that info and its man page refer to GPL without v2,
while the COPYING file refers to GPLv2.
On Don, 27 Jul 2006, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
The file
Hi Karl!
We got notified that info and its man page refer to GPL without v2,
while the COPYING file refers to GPLv2.
On Don, 27 Jul 2006, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
The file /usr/share/doc/info/copyright contains:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under
Package: info
Version: 4.8.dfsg.1-1
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 12.5
The file /usr/share/doc/info/copyright contains:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software
13 matches
Mail list logo
