| 1 |
Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> I know that I'm a bit late on this, but to me the "version 2 or later" is |
| 3 |
> a license by itself. Let's call it GPL-RENEW and let the file have |
| 4 |
> contents like: |
| 5 |
> "This package is licensed with the version x or later clause for the GPL." |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> The LICENSE would then be: |
| 8 |
> LICENSE="GPL-2 GPL-RENEW" |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The advantage being that the renew clause is version independent, we don't |
| 11 |
> lose information, don't have to mutilate licenses (by adding text). If |
| 12 |
> desired it could even be used as LICENSE="|| (GPL-2 GPL-3) GPL-RENEW" |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
That last bit's excessive IMO. It seems to add complexity- does it mean you |
| 15 |
can have either of the GPL2 or 3 plus any later from that version? Why not |
| 16 |
just cover that with your first example, which I like a lot- it spells out |
| 17 |
the later clause, and as you say, is version-independent. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
So GPL-3 GPL-RENEW could be specified, as well as simple GPL-2, or GPL-2 |
| 20 |
GPL-RENEW. (Just spelling it out, sorry.) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I'm thinking about your example and I can see how it covers a user who |
| 23 |
*wants* to use GPL-3 (eg for their own code) but I still think that comes |
| 24 |
under GPL-2 GPL-RENEW as it's clearly allowed. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives