On 20010830T141556-0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
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.
Actually, I think the
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Andrew McMillan wrote:
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
On 31-Aug-01, 10:43 (CDT), Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Andrew McMillan wrote:
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
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 31-Aug-01, 10:43 (CDT), Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As of today, there is only one GPL file. In my opinion it's soon for that.
However, if you insist that this has to be done now, then please get
policy changed first. For example:
Santiago == Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Santiago On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
No, we change practice first, then policy.
Santiago Are you sure? Hmm, perhaps we should have waited for all packages
Santiago moving to /usr/share/doc before making it policy ;-)
[ In reply to last Manoj's message ]
Ok, let's suppose that we do things gradually, as you suggest.
[ I'm trying to delegate the decision to the policy group, if possible ]
Let's consider the following proposal:
The GPL file in base-files should better be renamed to GPL-2 and
GPL should be
Santiago Vila wrote:
[ In reply to last Manoj's message ]
Ok, let's suppose that we do things gradually, as you suggest.
[ I'm trying to delegate the decision to the policy group, if possible ]
Let's consider the following proposal:
The GPL file in base-files should better be
7 matches
Mail list logo
