| 1 |
On Mon, 2020-01-27 at 16:53 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> two weeks from yesterday, on 2020-02-09, the Gentoo council will meet at |
| 3 |
> 19:00 utc in the #gentoo-council channel on freenode. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Please reply to this message with any items you would like us to discuss |
| 6 |
> or vote on. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
ulm has started the discussion on licensing ebuilds as GPL-2+ (i.e. |
| 10 |
permitting the users to choose a future GPL version, and developers to |
| 11 |
create derivative work licensed using newer GPL terms) [1]. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I'd like to request the Council to vote on the following aspects of that |
| 14 |
separately: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
1. Can developers individually decide to license their ebuilds as GPL-2+ |
| 17 |
rather than 'GPL-2 only' (provided that they fulfill relicensing |
| 18 |
requirements)? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
2. Should developers be encouraged to use GPL-2+ for new ebuilds |
| 21 |
(whenever possible)? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
3. Should we start collecting permissions from contributors to relicense |
| 24 |
their GPL-2 work as GPL-2+? This will be helpful both to 1. and 2. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Context: |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Recently pkgcheck was extended to check copyright notices on eclasses. |
| 30 |
This is based on a similar check for ebuilds, which in turn is based |
| 31 |
on check in repoman. It explicitly requires 'GPL-2 only' license. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
This new check discovered [2] that ant-tasks.eclass is using GPL-2+ |
| 34 |
header, and as such flagged it as incorrect. This raises the question |
| 35 |
on whether we should allow this license, or restrict ant-tasks.eclass |
| 36 |
to 'GPL-2 only'. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
[1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/89edd9093ecb797fbf9ecb7aab9ef1e2 |
| 40 |
[2] https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/output.html#global |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Best regards, |
| 44 |
Michał Górny |
Archives