| 1 |
On Mon, 2020-01-27 at 12:41 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> The following came up in #gentoo-qa yesterday, in a discussion between |
| 3 |
> mgorny, soap and myself. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Hey, I was waiting for the Council agenda mail to discuss this ;-). |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> So, the question is, should we allow ebuilds |
| 8 |
> # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, v2 or later |
| 9 |
> in the repository, or should we even encourage it for new ebuilds? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I have somewhat mixed feelings about this. One the one hand, I think |
| 12 |
> that GPL-2+ should generally be preferred because it offers better |
| 13 |
> compatibility. For example, the compatibility clause in CC-BY-SA-4.0 |
| 14 |
> won't work with GPL-2. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
It will also enable us to switch to GPL-3+ (or GPL-n+, in general) |
| 17 |
in the future, if we ever have a reason to. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> On the other hand, we would presumably never achieve a complete |
| 20 |
> transition to GPL-2+, so we would have ebuilds with either GPL variant |
| 21 |
> in the tree. Not sure how big an issue that would be. Updating ebuilds |
| 22 |
> wouldn't be a problem (as the old header would stay), but devs would |
| 23 |
> have to spend attention to the header when copying code from one ebuild |
| 24 |
> to another. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
We should work on getting approval from as many devs as possible, then |
| 27 |
the risk of inaccurate relicensing will be safely low. Then, there's |
| 28 |
the general problem of how much of ebuilds is actually copyrightable, |
| 29 |
and I don't think there will be any reason to object to it if ebuild |
| 30 |
doesn't have some really original code. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> Thoughts? |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I'm (obviously) all for it. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Best regards, |
| 39 |
Michał Górny |
Archives