GPL - a invalid license choice?

[Miriam Ruiz]

--- Jens Seidel <jensseidel at users.sf.net> escribió:

> Hi,
> 
> a few patches for hex-a-hop contain the following header:
> 
> # Copyright (C) 2007  Sam Hocevar <sam+deb at zoy.org>
> # Licensed under the GPL, see /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL
> 
> Does the license (GPL) make sense? What is GPL?

You can safely replace GPL by GPL version 2 or later. It was me who added
those headers. I think we should clarify who did which patch and its license,
as well as we do with the packages.

> The link refers to GPL version 2 which makes sense for me. But not to
> specify the version seems just wrong.

You're right, it might be better to specify the version.

> I even read short time ago in Linux Magazin that something as
> "GPL version 2 or later" may be invalid as a person cannot license
> a work under a future license (GPL 4, ...) because he doesn't know
> the content of it.

I think that might be a topic for debian-legal, but I don't think it really
affects us too much in practice, apart of discussing about the angel's gender
:)

Greetings,
Miry

PS: It might be better to use debian-devel-games at lists.debian.org for these
kind of discussions :)




       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sé un Mejor Amante del Cine                         
¿Quieres saber cómo? ¡Deja que otras personas te ayuden!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/reto/entretenimiento.html