From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MiHVp-0004t6-Kk for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:46:17 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A3E4E096D; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 05:55:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B673E096D for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 05:55:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AE8E65798 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 05:55:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.546 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.546 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.053, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 wR8B7lHjf6NZ for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 05:55:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A78D64FFE for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 05:55:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1MiMKU-0001OW-Mg for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:54:54 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-21-207.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.21.207]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:54:54 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-21-207.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:54:54 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Add operator + for licenses (EAPI-4 ?) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 05:54:33 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <4A9C4AD6.9080505@gentoo.org> <4A9C853D.8050003@hartwork.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-21-207.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies) Sender: news Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 9ea4ea44-372d-4797-a13c-9c9e0caecf25 X-Archives-Hash: bc4354d549cea6378c0be3cecae0b4e8 Sebastian Pipping posted on Tue, 01 Sep 2009 04:21:49 +0200 as excerpted: > However I do notice that "GPL-2+" could make things easier. Why not > introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ or so, instead? That woul= d > be transparent and use existing means. I've always thought Gentoo needed "plus" versions of the versioned=20 licenses, anyway. GPL-2, GPL-2+, GPL-3, and GPL-3+, should all be=20 different licenses, because really, they are. Then again, there's the various "waiver" conditions, which I /do/ see are= =20 covered with separate licenses for many of them, already. But someone already mentioned a license audit, which in practical terms=20 would be needed to really depend on the LICENSE variable in any case. --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman