| 1 |
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 22:54, Steve Long wrote: |
| 2 |
> Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I know that I'm a bit late on this, but to me the "version 2 or later" is |
| 4 |
> > a license by itself. Let's call it GPL-RENEW and let the file have |
| 5 |
> > contents like: |
| 6 |
> > "This package is licensed with the version x or later clause for the |
| 7 |
> > GPL." |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > The LICENSE would then be: |
| 10 |
> > LICENSE="GPL-2 GPL-RENEW" |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > The advantage being that the renew clause is version independent, we |
| 13 |
> > don't lose information, don't have to mutilate licenses (by adding text). |
| 14 |
> > If desired it could even be used as LICENSE="|| (GPL-2 GPL-3) GPL-RENEW" |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> That last bit's excessive IMO. It seems to add complexity- does it mean you |
| 17 |
> can have either of the GPL2 or 3 plus any later from that version? Why not |
| 18 |
> just cover that with your first example, which I like a lot- it spells out |
| 19 |
> the later clause, and as you say, is version-independent. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> So GPL-3 GPL-RENEW could be specified, as well as simple GPL-2, or GPL-2 |
| 22 |
> GPL-RENEW. (Just spelling it out, sorry.) |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I'm thinking about your example and I can see how it covers a user who |
| 25 |
> *wants* to use GPL-3 (eg for their own code) but I still think that comes |
| 26 |
> under GPL-2 GPL-RENEW as it's clearly allowed. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
My idea for the second way is basically to make the life of tools easier. It |
| 29 |
would make explicit that someone accepting GPL-3, but not GPL-2 would be able |
| 30 |
to accept a GPL-2 and later license. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Paul |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 36 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 37 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 38 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives