Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we allow "GPL, v2 or later" for ebuilds?
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 11:52:17
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Should we allow "GPL, v2 or later" for ebuilds? by Ulrich Mueller
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.
5 Hey, I was waiting for the Council agenda mail to discuss this ;-).
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.
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.
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.
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.
32 > Thoughts?
33 >
35 I'm (obviously) all for it.
37 --
38 Best regards,
39 Michał Górny


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature