[linux-elitists] RMS is at it again

kmself@ix.netcom.com kmself@ix.netcom.com
Thu Nov 30 21:33:32 PST 2000


on Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 11:59:36PM -0600, Joakim Ziegler (joakim@helixcode.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:27:19PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archive=no&bug=78341
> 
> > BSD license here we come!
> 
> Because?
> 
> What he's saying is true. The people creating the software chose to use the
> GPL, hence one must assume they intended it to be followed.

Likewise.

My only question is whether or not a dependency on a GPL package might
be considered a reasonable proxy.

Debian includes common licenses under /usr/share/common-licenses.

Hmmm...  Looks as if this already occurs:

    [karsten@navel:karsten]$ dpkg -S /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL
    base-files: /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL

So is this or is this not good enough?

The alternative would seem to be including the GPL in each seperate
package.  It's about 18k, not obscenely bad in itself, but somewhat
annoying for a packaged dist.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>     http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Zelerate, Inc.                      http://www.zelerate.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?      There is no K5 cabal
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/        http://www.kuro5hin.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20001130/88cd0b72/attachment.pgp 


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list