I received a report from Texinfo users (Helge Kretuzmann and Norbert
Preining, cc'd) that the --version output from info just said "GNU
General Public License", and that this could be interpreted as meaning
GPL version *1*.
The texinfo tools' --version output comes from the GNU coding standards.
So I suggested to rms that the --version output recommended in
standards.texi be changed to say (essentially) "GPL v2 or later".
rms suggested going further. Here is his message (in its entirety):
How about if we design a standard way of describing licenses and put
the list on the second line. For instance, GNU GPL v2+ would describe
Emacs. We could say that GPL-compatible licenses used with the GPL
need not be mentioned.
I think such a standard, if specified clearly and precisely, could
catch on and be a step forward for the community.
It seemed a reasonable idea to me, although more work :(. I guess the
output from emacs --version would then be something like this:
GNU Emacs 21.3.1
Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License: GNU GPL v2+
This is free software. There is NO warranty; not even for
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
(Not sure that we still want to refer to the COPYING* files.)
What do people think of such a thing as a GNU standard? I see that
--version output varies widely now ...
To pursue this, I guess a next step would be to look at the list of free
software licenses and come up with some abbreviations for the ones most
widely used. Anyone care to look into that?
Thanks,
Karl
