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 1H22K6-0008Pq-U6 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 09:22:15 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id l039KvVL017067; Wed, 3 Jan 2007 09:20:57 GMT Received: from mx.ATComputing.nl (mx.ATComputing.nl [195.108.229.5]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l039J76r026163 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2007 09:19:07 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost.atcomputing.nl [127.0.0.1]) by mx.ATComputing.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1086AE831 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:19:07 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: atcmpg.ATComputing.nl: paul set sender to pauldv@gentoo.org using -f From: Paul de Vrieze To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL-2 vs GPL-2+ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:18:51 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 References: <200612222156.55163@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <20061222155325.0f97c017@dukebook.lan> In-Reply-To: <20061222155325.0f97c017@dukebook.lan> 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: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2939019.DI1MYeKg6X"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200701031018.58352.pauldv@gentoo.org> X-Virus-Scanned: by AT Computing Virus Scanner X-Archives-Salt: 4369a968-badc-468b-b232-27e80fd16f8f X-Archives-Hash: b93ff93706cc3a0a78b1d648b0ea3513 --nextPart2939019.DI1MYeKg6X Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday 22 December 2006 22:53, Yuri Vasilevski wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100 > > "Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten=C3=B2" wrote: > > At the moment we represent the software we consider under GNU General > > Public License, version 2 of the license, but we cannot be sure it's > > alright to license it to "any later version". Linux kernel for > > instance is licensed _only_ under GPLv2, but not any later version. > > I don't think this is a good solution, as in any case the package is > licensed under GPL-2, so how about for the packages that only support > GPL-2 we set: > > LICENSE=3D"GPL-2" > > 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" I know that I'm a bit late on this, but to me the "version 2 or later" is a= =20 license by itself. Let's call it GPL-RENEW and let the file have contents=20 like: "This package is licensed with the version x or later clause for the GPL." The LICENSE would then be: LICENSE=3D"GPL-2 GPL-RENEW" The advantage being that the renew clause is version independent, we don't= =20 lose information, don't have to mutilate licenses (by adding text). If=20 desired it could even be used as LICENSE=3D"|| (GPL-2 GPL-3) GPL-RENEW" Paul =2D-=20 Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net --nextPart2939019.DI1MYeKg6X Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS) iD8DBQBFm3UCbKx5DBjWFdsRAoAIAKDV0RA+CKQK18d1vLFOe0vXl3VcDgCgzKDr +9dpVj5HKGrCFbWKsYfKbRg= =ce27 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2939019.DI1MYeKg6X-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list