| 1 |
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100 |
| 2 |
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <flameeyes@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> GPL-2: |
| 5 |
> Note: this license states that the software is licensed under GNU |
| 6 |
> General Public License version 2, and you might not be able to |
| 7 |
> consider it licensed under any later version. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> GPL-2+: |
| 10 |
> Note: this license explicitly allows licensing under GNU General |
| 11 |
> Public License version 2 or, at your option, any later version. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Comments, ideas, proposals? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
>From a purist point of view, I'd be inclined to go with this route. |
| 16 |
Pragmatically though, given the number of packages that do have the "or |
| 17 |
later" clause compared to the number that don't, it might be simpler to |
| 18 |
split them into GPL-2 (implying "or later") and GPL-2-only. That's just |
| 19 |
a possible naming quibble though -- the idea I like. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The suggestion to convert all GPL-2-or-later packages to || ( GPL-2 |
| 22 |
GPL-3 ) won't scale -- what happens when GPL-2.1 or GPL-3.1 appear? |
| 23 |
It's also an awful lot of work for something that is, when you get down |
| 24 |
to it, wrong. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives