Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Add operator + for licenses (EAPI-4 ?)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:45:44
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Add operator + for licenses (EAPI-4 ?) by Mounir Lamouri
Mounir Lamouri posted on Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:27:34 +0200 as excerpted:

> Rémi Cardona wrote: >> Mounir Lamouri a écrit : >>> Duncan wrote: >>>> Sebastian Pipping posted: >>>> >>>>> However I do notice that "GPL-2+" could make things easier. Why not >>>>> introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ >>>>> >>>> I've always thought Gentoo needed "plus" versions of the versioned >>>> licenses, anyway. GPL-2, GPL-2+, GPL-3, and GPL-3+, should all be >>>> different licenses, because really, they are. >>>> >>> AFAIK, GPL-2 and GPL-2+ are not different, >>> may you tell me more about that ? >> >> GPL-2+ means "GPL-2 GPL-3 GPL-4 ..." >> >> Not quite the same thing as just "GPL-2"
> But the content of the license is the same. That only means you can use > a newer one. I mean we do not need a new license file for that. It's up > to upstream to write somewhere if it's GPL-2 or GPL-2+, am I right ?
Let me quote a different reply of yours:
> Groups are not fixing the problem even for free aspect. If I have a > package licensed to LGPL-2, it's not free approved but if it's LGPL-2+, > it is. So I can't add LGPL-2 to @FSF-APPROVED, we agree ?
While the license text is the same, but for the condition "or greater" which may be written before or after the license, as you point out, the effective difference can be quite large indeed. It's this difference that in practice, we're worried about here. And our labels don't specifically mean anything (aren't legally valid) anyway. Thus, IMO we need a GPL2+ license description (and others similar), which would incorporate the GPL2 license, with, probably, a clearly delineated explanation at the top, "Gentoo license note: The authors license these works under the GPL-2 or later license. Following is the GPL-2 version. See also GPL-3, etc." Then a line of underscores or the like, clearly separating that note from the license. That would eliminate ambiguity and grouping problems such as you mention above, while, I believe, being legally solid -- as long as our note is clearly delineated from the actual license. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman