| 1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2018, Matija Šuklje wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> The GNU family was a special case and it was a very difficult and long |
| 4 |
> discussion/negotiation about it before the consensus was made. It was |
| 5 |
> caused by FSF’s very strong stance on this and the trade-off is that FSF |
| 6 |
> now recommends SPDX as well: |
| 7 |
> <https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/rms-article-for-claritys-sake-please-dont-say-licensed-under-gnu-gpl-2> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I wonder what the goal of that is? If someone says "you can redistribute |
| 10 |
under GPL version 2" (i.e. if they have removed the "or later" clause |
| 11 |
from the boilerplate license notice), it is very clear that it is to be |
| 12 |
distributed under GPL version 2 and no other license (like GPL-1, GPL-3, |
| 13 |
BSD, CDDL, or any other). So I wonder why RMS's article tries to muddle |
| 14 |
that up. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
For example, we have "GNU General Public License v2" in all ebuild |
| 17 |
headers, and no one has ever challenged that it could mean "v2 or |
| 18 |
later". As much as I regret that it doesn't say "or later", I think |
| 19 |
there's absolutely no room for interpretation here. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Ulrich |
Archives