| 1 |
On 01/05/2010 01:07 PM, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Periodically there's talk of adding "+" versions of at least the FSF |
| 3 |
> licenses, but while it would probably be quite a good thing, it'd be a |
| 4 |
> LOT of VERY boring work poring thru all those packages and either |
| 5 |
> updating to the + version, or leaving comments in each one saying they'd |
| 6 |
> been checked already. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I think that this should at least be added. If some things are more |
| 9 |
conservatively labeled as v2 when it should be v2+ it doesn't cause all |
| 10 |
that much harm. Over time the licenses would get updated, and then we'd |
| 11 |
have more useful metadata. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The whole concept of GPL-compatible doesn't work when GPL2 isn't |
| 14 |
compatible with GPL3, and vice-versa, and all the way back to 1. At |
| 15 |
best we can have GPL3-compatible or GPL2-compatible or whatever. What |
| 16 |
happens when GPL4 comes out and we need to edit the group again? What |
| 17 |
will that break? |
Archives