| 1 |
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:06:32 -0500 |
| 2 |
Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Yuri Vasilevski wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Hi, |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100 |
| 8 |
> > "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <flameeyes@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> >> At the moment we represent the software we consider under GNU |
| 11 |
> >> General Public License, version 2 of the license, but we cannot be |
| 12 |
> >> sure it's alright to license it to "any later version". Linux |
| 13 |
> >> kernel for instance is licensed _only_ under GPLv2, but not any |
| 14 |
> >> later version. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > I don't think this is a good solution, as in any case the package is |
| 17 |
> > licensed under GPL-2, so how about for the packages that only |
| 18 |
> > support GPL-2 we set: |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > LICENSE="GPL-2" |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > While for the ones that support v2 or later (this is actually a |
| 23 |
> > special case of multiple licensing) we do: |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > LICENSE="GPL-2 GPL-3" |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> If you meant: |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> LICENSE=" || ( GPL-2 GPL-3 )" |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> then I agree ;) |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> It would be under Either the GPL-2 OR a later version, not both, yes? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Right, thanks for catching that. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Yuri. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives