Jim Sansing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > However, after reading the discussion in bug report 431109, I am > wondering what is the rationale behind the common-licenses directory?
Mainly that repeating the uncompressed text of the GPL in every package licensed under the GPL actually ends up taking a rather measurable amount of space and is something of a waste. And since it's legal information, it's much more difficult to justify stripping it even in embedded configurations where that space really hurts. > It seems that there is some disagreement and a bit of confusion, even in > this group, on how to handle GPLvX or higher. I think this was transitory. We can work out later if we need to say something in Policy about the symlinks, but for the time being, I think just listing the explicit versions that are in common-licenses will be fine. Maintainers can point to the specific version of the file that their package is released under, or if they want to deal with the ambiguity and have a package that's released under the redistributor's choice, use the symlink. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
