Specific license field
ndmitchell at gmail.com
Tue Nov 10 10:38:02 EST 2009
>> If we'd had better foresight we would never have added BSD4 and could
>> then have claimed that "BSD" covered both the 2 and 3 clause versions.
>> We're not trying to nail down every last nuance in the licenses (e.g. I
>> don't think we need to be trying to distinguish GPL-2 from GPL-2+).
> Sorry, as a debian maintainer I think you really do need to care about
> this if you are interested in making cabal packages easily converted
> into Debian packages.
> The Debian project (and therefore also Ubuntu) are real sticklers for
> getting the copyright terms correct and making them well known. They
> go to great lengths to distinguish between GPL2, GPL2plus and GPL3.
> Now if cabal only listed BSD, GPL and LGPL then it would fall to people
> getting the LICENSE files right.
How do people modify the LICENSE file to indicate their GPL2/GPL2plus
intention? From what I can see, the LICENSE file is the GPL2, and you
need to say how it applies to your code - that's not something for the
LICENSE file itself, but for the package metadata. Does Debian have
some standard wording that applies this?
I also want to know whether all the other Haskell GPL stuff is GPL2 or
GPL2+ - since I might as well follow the crowd. I'll ask Malcolm :-)
More information about the cabal-devel