From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-85791-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6932B138334
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 17:14:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 043C6E08F4;
Sun, 26 Aug 2018 17:14:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E6C1E08EC
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 17:14:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pomiot (d202-252.icpnet.pl [109.173.202.252])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
(Authenticated sender: mgorny)
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 22F7C335CA7;
Sun, 26 Aug 2018 17:14:39 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1535303675.1066.32.camel@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Solving the problem of huge number of wrong
LICENSES=*GPL-[23]
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= <mgorny@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Cc: licenses@gentoo.org, qa <qa@gentoo.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 19:14:35 +0200
In-Reply-To: <w6g1sal2kkw.fsf@kph.uni-mainz.de>
References: <1535279962.1066.24.camel@gentoo.org>
<w6g1sal2kkw.fsf@kph.uni-mainz.de>
Organization: Gentoo
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512";
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-3uPgFnGum8Wg7dV4UMKH"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.6
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Archives-Salt: 6ff2a90a-8407-459f-a2ff-d3401461e21b
X-Archives-Hash: 02cb0c6bdd00a920758364087026053c
--=-3uPgFnGum8Wg7dV4UMKH
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, 2018-08-26 at 17:50 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote:
> > 1. introducing additional *-only licenses that explicitly indicate
> > that a newer version is not allowed, e.g. GPL-2-only, LGPL-3-only etc.
>=20
> I don't like this at all, because LICENSE=3D"GPL-2" means exactly the
> above, namely GPL version 2, no later version. Therefore, "GPL-2-only"
> would be completely redundant to it.
>=20
> What we could do (and what already exists in several ebuilds) is to add
> a *comment* to the LICENSE line, like "# GPL-2 only". This could be
> required for every new ebuild.
Sure, I suppose that would work.
> > 2. annotating the unsuffixed licenses with a warning that they may
> > mean either x-only or x+ due to frequent mistake.
>=20
> I don't think that's a good idea either. Also we're not allowed to
> change the license documents:
> "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
> of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
I don't think adding an annotation on top or bottom is equal to changing
it.
>=20
> > 3. make repoman warn whenever non-specific variant is used, telling
> > developers to verify whether it's x-only or x+.
>=20
> Repoman could check for a comment in the LICENSE line as well, I guess?
Proper handling of comments would be rather hard, especially given that
by definition they have no specific form and therefore users can use
them in weird ways.
>=20
> > 4. start migrating packages to x-only or x+ appropriately.
>=20
> See above. We could instead migrate ebuilds with "GPL-2" to either:
> LICENSE=3D"GPL-2+"
> or:
> LICENSE=3D"GPL-2" # GPL-2 only
One thing where this would fail would be e.g.:
LICENSE=3D"GPL-2+
bar? ( GPL-2 )
foo? ( GPL-3+ )" ^ you can't put a comment on the right line
>=20
> Optionally, the comment can be removed once all ebuilds have been
> converted.
>=20
> > 5. eventually, remove the non-specific licenses and make repoman error
> > out with clear explanation.
>=20
> Ulrich
--=20
Best regards,
Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny
--=-3uPgFnGum8Wg7dV4UMKH
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=JWAM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-3uPgFnGum8Wg7dV4UMKH--