Archives
Archives
| From: | Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> | ||
| Cc: | gentoo development <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>, licenses <licenses@g.o> | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding 'GPL-2-only', 'GPL-3-only' etc. license variants for better auditing | ||
| Date: | Sat, 21 Sep 2019 23:46:12 | ||
| Message-Id: | w6gtv95nrgl.fsf@kph.uni-mainz.de | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding 'GPL-2-only', 'GPL-3-only' etc. license variants for better auditing by Matt Turner |
||
| 1 | >>>>> On Sun, 22 Sep 2019, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 2 | |
| 3 | > An idea to consider: use SPDX license identifiers (see |
| 4 | > https://spdx.org/licenses/) |
| 5 | |
| 6 | > For GPL 2 they are "GPL-2.0-only" and "GPL-2.0-or-later" |
| 7 | |
| 8 | Yeah, they have a history of using silly names. What does 2.0 mean? |
| 9 | There is no such version of the GPL, and with Gentoo versioning rules, |
| 10 | 2 is not equal to 2.0. |
| 11 | |
| 12 | Another funny thing is that they first introduced a "+" operator, but |
| 13 | then decided not to use it for the GPL family, but append "-or-later" |
| 14 | instead. (And IIUC, "GPL-2.0-only+" is valid in their scheme and |
| 15 | equivalent to "GPL-2.0-or-later".) |
| 16 | |
| 17 | Ulrich |
| File name | MIME type |
|---|---|
| signature.asc | application/pgp-signature |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding 'GPL-2-only', 'GPL-3-only' etc. license variants for better auditing | Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> |
| Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding 'GPL-2-only', 'GPL-3-only' etc. license variants for better auditing | Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> |