tags 460232 confirmed thanks Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 01:31:12PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Hi! The copyright file contains: > ALTERNATIVELY, this product may be distributed under the terms of the > GNU General Public License, in which case the provisions of the GNU > GPL are required INSTEAD OF the above restrictions. (This clause is > necessary due to a potential conflict between the GNU GPL and the > restrictions contained in a BSD-style copyright.) > ... > On Debian GNU/Linux systems, the complete text of the GNU General > Public License can be found in `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL'. > Which version of the GPL does this refer to? The file in > common-licenses is now actually GPLv3, but I suspect that Linux-PAM > intended to use GPLv2 or GPLv1 here. In any case, I think the license > of the package isn't clear. > I looked in upstream sources, but couldn't find a copy of the GPL at > all, so this problem may be due to upstream. Still, it would be good to > fix it. The only version of the GPL that was current at the time Linux-PAM became available was GPLv2, so this is the only reasonable reading of this license. I could try to clarify with upstream whether they would like PAM to be available under GPLv3, but this code has had a fair number of contributors over its 10+-year history, so getting the code fully relicensed would take a fair amount of effort. In the meantime I'll fix this to point at GPLv2 only. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
