Humberto Massa writes: > Diego Biurrun wrote: > > Walter Landry writes: > >> I wouldn't say that is really supported by the letter of the > >> license. The license states "the date of any change", not the > >> first and last with a pointer. You could point to existing > >> practice, but not to the license. > >> > >> In general, I think that section 2a is a bit more restrictive > >> than was really intended, which is why it is so widely flouted. > > > > I agree fully. As I said, adhering to the letter of 2a is > > completely infeasible IMHO. That's why I explicitly asked for > > alternatives that are existing practice and acceptable for Debian. > > Just to add MHO, "the date of any change" is different the "the date > of all changes", isn't it? To the letter, if I put just one date, it's > ok... > > As English is not my native language, I went to the "official" CC-GPL > translated in my native language (Brazilian Portuguese) at > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/legalcode.pt > > Having in mind that this is AFAIK the only "approved by the FSF" > translation of the GPL and the translator, *and* the fsf reviewer > agreed in 2a as being "a data de qualquer modificação" == "the date of > _any_ change", as opposed to "a data de todas as modificações" == "the > date of _each and every_ change"
In any case, this is a real mess. Does anybody of you know if the FSF is going to address this issue (or at least reword 2a) in GPL-3? If not, the Debian project would be a good entity to approach them asking for this kind of change. Diego
