Re: --version output and license specifications

[Karl Berry]

    License: GPL v2

GNU GPL v2+ ... the + is very important.

    The important thing is the URLs, not the abbreviations.  

Yes, clearly there has to be something describing what the abbreviations
mean.  I'd prefer that to be a url, but it could also be in
standards.texi.  I don't know if rms will have strong feelings about
this.

I very much doubt we can reliably maintain a url for each version of
each license.

    For that, <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html> is a good
    list.

It would be ok for me, and we could add the abbreviations to that page.

    I don't know where the "MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
    PURPOSE." came from in the snipped you quoted.  The wording above is
    used by coreutils: 

It comes from the recommended wording in the GPL appendix for source
files.  Some packages use it in the --version output, too, although the
appendix just says "comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY" for interactive
use; of course --version isn't interactive.  Anyway, the coreutils
warranty wording seems preferable to me too.

It's all quite a mess.