1 |
Zac Medico wrote: |
2 |
> Sebastian Pipping wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> I propose support for license groups in ebuilds then, I guess. |
5 |
>> |
6 |
> That seems like a reasonable solution. So, an ebuild can do |
7 |
> something like LICENSE="@GPL-2+" and that will expand to whatever |
8 |
> the definition of the GPL-2+ license group happens to be. When a new |
9 |
> version of GPL license comes out, we simple add it to that group, |
10 |
> and none of the corresponding ebuilds have to be updated. |
11 |
> |
12 |
I suppose adding group license support in ebuilds will fix the problem |
13 |
too. But I see a few disadvantages like: |
14 |
- new behavior for @ operator: it will not only expand a group but also |
15 |
adding a || operator (only for LICENSE) |
16 |
- devs will have to maintain new groups |
17 |
- group support in LICENSE has no other need that managing versioned |
18 |
licenses |
19 |
In an other hand, it will prevent us adding a new operator. |
20 |
And Sébastian, I don't understand you when you said GPL-2+ will be |
21 |
confusing for the user as it's a term commonly used in the FOSS world. |
22 |
But if everybody think groups are better, that will be fine. |
23 |
|
24 |
For those who think this feature is useless because we are not lawyers |
25 |
and ebuilds don't care about licenses, I just want to add it will not be |
26 |
a new _requirement_ but a new _possibility_. As Ciaran's said, you |
27 |
already have to check for licenses at the moment. So even if some devs |
28 |
do mistake (or do not update the info) as said Jeremy, we have at least |
29 |
this information. If you know a package is GPL-2 licensed, you can set |
30 |
LICENSE="GPL-2", it's valid, IMO. If you want to go far than that and |
31 |
check if it's GPL-2+, it's better but not _needed_. |
32 |
It's a small feature and it can help. |
33 |
|
34 |
Thanks, |
35 |
Mounir |