Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Ranged licenses
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:42:59
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Ranged licenses by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:02:25PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
2 > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:54:57 +0100
3 > Thilo Bangert <bangert@g.o> wrote:
4 > > there is also the legal argument. it's better to state explicitly
5 > > which versions apply and not have to cleanup the mess, when somebody
6 > > decides to release GPL-2.5.
7 > That's an argument strongly in favour of ranged specs. A huge number of
8 > packages are licensed under "GPL 2 or later", and currently most ebuilds
9 > incorrectly use LICENSE="GPL-2" for these. Even changing these to
10 > LICENSE="|| ( GPL-2 GPL-3 )" just shifts the problem around a bit. With
11 > CRAN "GPL 2 or later" translates to "GPL (>= 2)", which is a much more
12 > accurate description of a package's license.
13 Going beyond the GPL, there are a number of other license statements
14 that use an 'or later' clause, but there is only one version of the
15 license present so far. Doing the _or_later suffix hack is a bit nasty,
16 because then you expect to find that as a file in licenses/, or need to
17 have special handling for it.
19 I'm for ranged licenses, but I think attention needs to be paid to the
20 syntax. The postfix [] form does nicely separate the version information
21 from the actual license name (moreso than the traditional CPV atom), but
22 the LGPL[>=2&<3] example looks to be overloading it, when we already
23 have AND/OR at the higher level.
24 LICENSE="|| ( Eclipse ( LGPL[>=2] LGPL[<3] ) )"
25 Which is, Eclipse OR (LGPL v2 up to, but not including LGPLv3).
27 --
28 Robin Hugh Johnson
29 Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy
30 E-Mail : robbat2@g.o
31 GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ranged licenses Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk>