Bug#1135097: Please extent list of licenses named in chapter 12.5

Mechtilde Stehmann <[email protected]> Tue, 28 Apr 2026 08:35:15 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.policy
Message-ID	<608f6a8d-9fc4-43bd-8c5b-045a03160e4f__16765.966468823$1777358247$gmane$org@debian.org>

Hello Simon,

Am 27.04.26 um 22:47 schrieb Simon Josefsson:
> +1 to the general proposal, although a little detail:
> 
> Mechtilde Stehmann <[email protected]> writes:
> 
>> 3), the GNU LGPL (versions 2, 2.1, or 3), the GNU FDL (versions 1.2 or 1.3),
> ...
>> LGPL (versions 2, 2.1, or 3), the GNU FDL-NIV (versions 1.2 or 1.3), the
> 
> What do you intend to convey by changing 'GNU FDL' to 'GNU FDL-NIV'
> here?
> 
> Assuming you will add the entire verbatim GNU FDL license from upstream,
> that license text covers both non-invariant section and invariant
> section uses.
> 
> Shouldn't a package in non-free (e.g., emacs-non-dfsg) be able to
> reference the GNU FDL from common-license?
 > > I don't think it make sense to refer to the GFDL text in any partial
> way.  Either something uses GFDL or it doesn't use the GFDL.  It may use
> it with non-invariant sections (-> non-free) or without them (-> main),
> but it is still the same license.
> 
> I suggest merely dropping '-NIV' from the proposed change above.

If all other changes are ok, please remove the addition NIV from my 
proposal.

I wanted to make more clear that only the NIV version is DFSG-conform.
> 
> /Simon

Regards
-- 
Mechtilde Stehmann
## Debian Developer
## PGP encryption welcome
## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899  39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F

OpenPGP_signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)