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 1H2E7l-0003PD-Qx for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:58:18 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id l03Lu97v032600; Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:56:09 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l03LqbKY028582 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:52:37 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB49564982 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:52:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -1.173 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.173 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.5] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sO2mI+yE1hVH for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:52:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C51B864447 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:52:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1H2E1t-00047P-Uo for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:52:13 +0100 Received: from 82.152.202.104 ([82.152.202.104]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:52:13 +0100 Received: from slong by 82.152.202.104 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:52:13 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steve Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: GPL-2 vs GPL-2+ Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:54:07 +0000 Message-ID: References: <200612222156.55163@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <20061222155325.0f97c017@dukebook.lan> <200701031018.58352.pauldv@gentoo.org> 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=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.152.202.104 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: eaa24b85-4336-4f8a-96ed-94a35284daa5 X-Archives-Hash: f1898543eb06d0b9cd079e7dff75a51a Paul de Vrieze wrote: > I know that I'm a bit late on this, but to me the "version 2 or later" is > a license by itself. Let's call it GPL-RENEW and let the file have > contents like: > "This package is licensed with the version x or later clause for the GPL." > > The LICENSE would then be: > LICENSE="GPL-2 GPL-RENEW" > > The advantage being that the renew clause is version independent, we don't > lose information, don't have to mutilate licenses (by adding text). If > desired it could even be used as LICENSE="|| (GPL-2 GPL-3) GPL-RENEW" > That last bit's excessive IMO. It seems to add complexity- does it mean you can have either of the GPL2 or 3 plus any later from that version? Why not just cover that with your first example, which I like a lot- it spells out the later clause, and as you say, is version-independent. So GPL-3 GPL-RENEW could be specified, as well as simple GPL-2, or GPL-2 GPL-RENEW. (Just spelling it out, sorry.) I'm thinking about your example and I can see how it covers a user who *wants* to use GPL-3 (eg for their own code) but I still think that comes under GPL-2 GPL-RENEW as it's clearly allowed. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list