1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:54:57 +0100 |
3 |
> Thilo Bangert <bangert@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>> there is also the legal argument. it's better to state explicitly |
5 |
>> which versions apply and not have to cleanup the mess, when somebody |
6 |
>> decides to release GPL-2.5. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> That's an argument strongly in favour of ranged specs. A huge number of |
9 |
> packages are licensed under "GPL 2 or later", and currently most ebuilds |
10 |
> incorrectly use LICENSE="GPL-2" for these. Even changing these to |
11 |
> LICENSE="|| ( GPL-2 GPL-3 )" just shifts the problem around a bit. With |
12 |
> CRAN "GPL 2 or later" translates to "GPL (>= 2)", which is a much more |
13 |
> accurate description of a package's license. |
14 |
|
15 |
Either requires the same amount of work; auditing a package and correcting |
16 |
the LICENSE variable. I think we could take a previous idea of Flameeyes' |
17 |
and add a GPL-2+ or GPL-2_or_later licence. |
18 |
|
19 |
As for other licences, i have no real opinion. It seems like a complex |
20 |
solution for a small problem though. |
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
-- |
24 |
looks like christmas at fifty-five degrees |
25 |
this latitude weakens my knees |
26 |
EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 (0xF9A40662) |