| 1 |
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 18:05:48 +0000 |
| 2 |
Stephen Bennett <spb@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100 |
| 5 |
> "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <flameeyes@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > GPL-2: |
| 8 |
> > Note: this license states that the software is licensed under GNU |
| 9 |
> > General Public License version 2, and you might not be able to |
| 10 |
> > consider it licensed under any later version. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > GPL-2+: |
| 13 |
> > Note: this license explicitly allows licensing under GNU General |
| 14 |
> > Public License version 2 or, at your option, any later version. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > Comments, ideas, proposals? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> From a purist point of view, I'd be inclined to go with this route. |
| 19 |
> Pragmatically though, given the number of packages that do have the |
| 20 |
> "or later" clause compared to the number that don't, it might be |
| 21 |
> simpler to split them into GPL-2 (implying "or later") and |
| 22 |
> GPL-2-only. That's just a possible naming quibble though -- the idea |
| 23 |
> I like. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> The suggestion to convert all GPL-2-or-later packages to || ( GPL-2 |
| 26 |
> GPL-3 ) won't scale -- what happens when GPL-2.1 or GPL-3.1 appear? |
| 27 |
> It's also an awful lot of work for something that is, when you get |
| 28 |
> down to it, wrong. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I agree. Diego's proposal works fine in practice; the 'might not' in |
| 31 |
the description for GPL-2 makes it clear that we don't guarantee to |
| 32 |
have updated all existing ebuilds to use the GPL-2+ name where |
| 33 |
appropriate. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Doing it on an opportunity basis should be fine, so I don't think we |
| 36 |
need to worry about doing GPL-2-only. Saying GPL-2 when GPL-3 is also |
| 37 |
acceptable isn't critical in the near term; it won't cause people to |
| 38 |
install stuff with a license they don't accept. It won't really be |
| 39 |
needed until someone wants to have GPL-3 stuff but no GPL-2-only stuff |
| 40 |
- I think it's reasonable to avoid supporting that for a while, at |
| 41 |
least. If we start now, with all new commits having GPL-2 changed to |
| 42 |
GPL-2+ if appropriate, after a while we can change the GPL-2 |
| 43 |
description to be GPL-2 only and let GPL-3-only people (there's |
| 44 |
always one) bug about packages that are still unchanged when they hit |
| 45 |
them. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
-- |
| 48 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives