| 1 |
On Friday 22 December 2006 22:53, Yuri Vasilevski wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100 |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <flameeyes@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > At the moment we represent the software we consider under GNU General |
| 8 |
> > Public License, version 2 of the license, but we cannot be sure it's |
| 9 |
> > alright to license it to "any later version". Linux kernel for |
| 10 |
> > instance is licensed _only_ under GPLv2, but not any later version. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I don't think this is a good solution, as in any case the package is |
| 13 |
> licensed under GPL-2, so how about for the packages that only support |
| 14 |
> GPL-2 we set: |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> LICENSE="GPL-2" |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> While for the ones that support v2 or later (this is actually a special |
| 19 |
> case of multiple licensing) we do: |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> LICENSE="GPL-2 GPL-3" |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I know that I'm a bit late on this, but to me the "version 2 or later" is a |
| 24 |
license by itself. Let's call it GPL-RENEW and let the file have contents |
| 25 |
like: |
| 26 |
"This package is licensed with the version x or later clause for the GPL." |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
The LICENSE would then be: |
| 29 |
LICENSE="GPL-2 GPL-RENEW" |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
The advantage being that the renew clause is version independent, we don't |
| 32 |
lose information, don't have to mutilate licenses (by adding text). If |
| 33 |
desired it could even be used as LICENSE="|| (GPL-2 GPL-3) GPL-RENEW" |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Paul |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 39 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 40 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 41 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives