1 |
>>>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
>>>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012, Sebastian Pipping wrote: |
4 |
>> The "GPL-2+" file workaround doesn't sound to bad. |
5 |
|
6 |
>> Call be picky, but we could actually use a "GPL-3+" file, too. |
7 |
>> With that we could distinguish "exactly GPL 3" and "GPL 3 or later" |
8 |
>> properly on our end, no matter if GPL 4 ever comes or not. |
9 |
|
10 |
> Yes, that was the idea. Otherwise we would have to start over again |
11 |
> whenever a GPL-4 appears. |
12 |
|
13 |
> AFAICS, we would need 9 additional license files, namely GPL-{1,2,3}+, |
14 |
> LGPL-{2,2.1,3}+, and FDL-{1.1,1.2,1.3}+. |
15 |
|
16 |
Coming back to this, because the council has now rejected license |
17 |
groups for EAPI 5. I would then create above-mentioned files in the |
18 |
licenses dir. |
19 |
|
20 |
Is it sufficient to include a reference to GPL-2 etc. like this: |
21 |
|
22 |
╓────[ GPL-2+ ] |
23 |
║ GNU General Public License version 2, or any later version. |
24 |
║ See GPL-2 or GPL-3 for the full text of these licenses. |
25 |
╙──── |
26 |
|
27 |
Or should the full license text of GPL-2 be repeated in the GPL-2+ |
28 |
file? |
29 |
|
30 |
Ulrich |