| 1 |
Vincent Launchbury posted on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:15:10 -0500 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Also, I was wondering about LGPL-2 and GPL-1, surely they're |
| 4 |
> GPL-compatible? The suggested license header in |
| 5 |
> /usr/portage/licenses/GPL-1 contains "either version 1, or (at your |
| 6 |
> option) any later version." The LGPL-2 suggests 2 or later also. It's |
| 7 |
> strange that the FSF doesn't mention them. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
The FSF "or later version" clauses are generally optional, and GPL-1 is |
| 10 |
not considered free software, AFAIK. Couple that with the fact that |
| 11 |
Gentoo's license settings don't distinguish between the licenses with the |
| 12 |
"or later version" clause and those without, and GPLv1 licensed packages, |
| 13 |
regardless of whether they have the "or later version" clause or not, |
| 14 |
cannot be added to the FSF-approved list, because some may NOT have that |
| 15 |
clause, and Gentoo doesn't make the distinction. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Periodically there's talk of adding "+" versions of at least the FSF |
| 18 |
licenses, but while it would probably be quite a good thing, it'd be a |
| 19 |
LOT of VERY boring work poring thru all those packages and either |
| 20 |
updating to the + version, or leaving comments in each one saying they'd |
| 21 |
been checked already. When people realize the work involved, talk |
| 22 |
quickly dies, as there are always other more pressing projects to work |
| 23 |
on, bugs to fix, etc. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 27 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 28 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives