1 |
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:31:04 +0100 |
2 |
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <flameeyes@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Friday 22 December 2006 22:53, Yuri Vasilevski wrote: |
5 |
> > While for the ones that support v2 or later (this is actually a |
6 |
> > special case of multiple licensing) we do: |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > LICENSE="GPL-2 GPL-3" |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > when it becomes available? |
11 |
> There is one problem at least for this: to apply this method you'd |
12 |
> have to change _all_ the ebuilds in the tree referring to GPL-2 or |
13 |
> later when GPL-3 is published, while with GPL-2+ we can start |
14 |
> gradually now. |
15 |
|
16 |
Yes, this will require us to update ebuils once in like 5 (or 15?) |
17 |
years to catch with FSF. But at the benefit of having less confusion |
18 |
for users about "What the heck is a GPL-2+?" for at last the same period |
19 |
of time. |
20 |
|
21 |
GPL-2 is not a licence nor it is not a standard notation for that way |
22 |
of having multilicencing. So users will have to check what's the |
23 |
meaning of that + at the end of GPL-2+, so I think it'll create much |
24 |
more confusion than the work of updating packages with each new version |
25 |
of GPL. |
26 |
|
27 |
Also there could be a case that softer v3 is out, FSF will rethink and |
28 |
come up with something acceptable to Linus (and other people that |
29 |
refuse to migrate), as (as far as I can understand) GPL-3 will not be |
30 |
compatible with GPL-2. So there could be the case of having a package |
31 |
licenced under GPL-2, GPL-2.1 or later. (This is just an example, I |
32 |
actually have no idea whatever this will be the case of having a softer |
33 |
GPL-3.x.) |
34 |
|
35 |
> Also it would be more useful for users to know what can be licensed |
36 |
> in 2+ and what requires 2 strictly. |
37 |
|
38 |
This info can be easily and automatically extracted from LICENSE |
39 |
variable by applying some boolean logic ;-) |
40 |
|
41 |
Yuri. |
42 |
|
43 |
-- |
44 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |