1 |
On Sun, 2018-08-26 at 13:09 +0200, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: |
2 |
> On 26/08/2018 12:53, Mart Raudsepp wrote: |
3 |
> > The common issue here is that upstream COPYING files really do only |
4 |
> > talk about one of the versions. And then you get to validate or source |
5 |
> > files to be sure that they do have a "or later" clause in them. And |
6 |
> > then on each bump you ideally should validate it again, etc, that no |
7 |
> > sources without "or later" allowance are in there... |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Yup, precise tracking of license metadata can be a pain. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I'm not really sure if that level of it is worth for us as a distro. For |
12 |
> _importing_ other project's source code directly into one's project |
13 |
> precise license compatibility matters a lot. That's not the scenario |
14 |
> we're in. I see LICENSES as mostly a mechanism for end users to accept |
15 |
> or reject EULAs etc, and I'm curious what are other common scenarios. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Michał, could you elaborate on why not distinguishing more precisely |
18 |
> between these GPL variants in LICENSES is a _problem_ ? I can certainly |
19 |
> see the information is not always accurate, but it's not obvious to me |
20 |
> how severe is the downside, what are the consequences in practice. |
21 |
> |
22 |
|
23 |
I'm not aware of any major implications. However, I think that if we |
24 |
provide for the distinction, the distinction should be used correctly. |
25 |
|
26 |
-- |
27 |
Best regards, |
28 |
Michał Górny |