| 1 |
Rémi Cardona wrote: |
| 2 |
> Le 03/09/2009 23:10, Mounir Lamouri a écrit : |
| 3 |
>> Duncan wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Sebastian Pipping posted on Tue, 01 Sep 2009 04:21:49 +0200 as |
| 5 |
>>> excerpted: |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>>> However I do notice that "GPL-2+" could make things easier. Why not |
| 9 |
>>>> introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ or so, instead? That |
| 10 |
>>>> would |
| 11 |
>>>> be transparent and use existing means. |
| 12 |
>>>> |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> I've always thought Gentoo needed "plus" versions of the versioned |
| 15 |
>>> licenses, anyway. GPL-2, GPL-2+, GPL-3, and GPL-3+, should all be |
| 16 |
>>> different licenses, because really, they are. |
| 17 |
>>> |
| 18 |
>> AFAIK, GPL-2 and GPL-2+ are not different, may you tell me more about |
| 19 |
>> that ? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> GPL-2+ means "GPL-2 GPL-3 GPL-4 ..." |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Not quite the same thing as just "GPL-2" |
| 24 |
But the content of the license is the same. That only means you can use |
| 25 |
a newer one. |
| 26 |
I mean we do not need a new license file for that. It's up to upstream |
| 27 |
to write somewhere if it's GPL-2 or GPL-2+, am I right ? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Mounir |
Archives