From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Gxtga-0000BK-1o for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:20:20 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id kBMNJN2F020456; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:19:23 GMT Received: from duke.math.cinvestav.mx (Duke.math.cinvestav.mx [148.247.186.97]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kBMNHRXE008547 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:17:27 GMT Received: from dukebook.lan (unknown [189.140.247.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by duke.math.cinvestav.mx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60AA510118 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:17:26 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:17:07 -0600 From: Yuri Vasilevski To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL-2 vs GPL-2+ Message-ID: <20061222171707.54b060fe@dukebook.lan> In-Reply-To: <200612222331.17989@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> References: <200612222156.55163@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <20061222155325.0f97c017@dukebook.lan> <200612222331.17989@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.10.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by robin.gentoo.org id kBMNHRXE008547 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id kBMNJN48020456 X-Archives-Salt: f1f2b735-8831-4dbd-8028-bb16df0fe18b X-Archives-Hash: 210ecb54bc7f8906f1c42a941d22c5d1 On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:31:04 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten=C3=B2" wrote: > On Friday 22 December 2006 22:53, Yuri Vasilevski wrote: > > While for the ones that support v2 or later (this is actually a > > special case of multiple licensing) we do: > > > > LICENSE=3D"GPL-2 GPL-3" > > > > when it becomes available? > There is one problem at least for this: to apply this method you'd > have to change _all_ the ebuilds in the tree referring to GPL-2 or > later when GPL-3 is published, while with GPL-2+ we can start > gradually now. Yes, this will require us to update ebuils once in like 5 (or 15?) years to catch with FSF. But at the benefit of having less confusion for users about "What the heck is a GPL-2+?" for at last the same period of time. GPL-2 is not a licence nor it is not a standard notation for that way of having multilicencing. So users will have to check what's the meaning of that + at the end of GPL-2+, so I think it'll create much more confusion than the work of updating packages with each new version of GPL. Also there could be a case that softer v3 is out, FSF will rethink and come up with something acceptable to Linus (and other people that refuse to migrate), as (as far as I can understand) GPL-3 will not be compatible with GPL-2. So there could be the case of having a package licenced under GPL-2, GPL-2.1 or later. (This is just an example, I actually have no idea whatever this will be the case of having a softer GPL-3.x.) > Also it would be more useful for users to know what can be licensed > in 2+ and what requires 2 strictly. This info can be easily and automatically extracted from LICENSE variable by applying some boolean logic ;-) Yuri. --=20 gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list