| 1 |
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:18:51 +0100 |
| 2 |
Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I know that I'm a bit late on this, but to me the "version 2 or |
| 5 |
> later" is a license by itself. Let's call it GPL-RENEW and let the |
| 6 |
> file have contents like: |
| 7 |
> "This package is licensed with the version x or later clause for the |
| 8 |
> GPL." |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
This is effectively what Diego was proposing with the 'GPL-2+' name. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> The LICENSE would then be: |
| 13 |
> LICENSE="GPL-2 GPL-RENEW" |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> The advantage being that the renew clause is version independent, we |
| 16 |
> don't lose information, don't have to mutilate licenses (by adding |
| 17 |
> text). If desired it could even be used as LICENSE="|| (GPL-2 GPL-3) |
| 18 |
> GPL-RENEW" |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
This isn't necessary - by creating the 'GPL-2+' license name, the only |
| 21 |
thing that's not fully correct as things stand is that packages that |
| 22 |
can be accepted with GPL-2 or later won't be accepted if the user has |
| 23 |
just GPL-3 in ACCEPT_LICENSES. Over time this can be fixed, by |
| 24 |
replacing "GPL-2" with "GPL-2+" in the LICENSE variable for the |
| 25 |
relevant packages. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The the meaning of each license name would be strictly: |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
GPL-2 : Only licensed under GPL v2 |
| 30 |
GPL-3 : Only licensed under GPL v3 |
| 31 |
GPL-2+ : Licensed under GPL v2 or later |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Which gives everyone what they need; those wanting GPL-2 or later would |
| 34 |
have ACCEPT_LICENSES="GPL-2 GPL-3 GPL-2+". |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
For me, the only other sane alternative would be to use license groups |
| 38 |
(assuming license groups can be specified in the LICENSE variable). I |
| 39 |
don't recall the status of license groups in portage. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives