| 1 |
Mounir Lamouri wrote: |
| 2 |
>> However I do notice that "GPL-2+" could make things easier. |
| 3 |
>> Why not introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ or so, instead? |
| 4 |
>> That would be transparent and use existing means. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
> I don't understand where the black magic is. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
It would be in the implementation and in the non-transparency. |
| 9 |
How can a user understabnd that "GPL-2+" refers to a group of license |
| 10 |
files but "GPL-2" refers to a single file? He may guess but it's not |
| 11 |
obvious, especially if it hasn#t been like that in the past, which is |
| 12 |
the case. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> However, a |
| 16 |
> group will not add the information in the ebuild. In other words, I will |
| 17 |
> have GPL-2 and GPL-3 with GPL-2+ in ACCEPT_LICENSE but I will not have |
| 18 |
> GPL-2+ packages if i set only GPL-3 in ACCEPT_LICENSE. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I propose support for license groups in ebuilds then, I guess. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Sebastian |
Archives