>>>>> On Sun, 22 Sep 2019, Matt Turner wrote:

> We are all aware. But the point is to explicitly put "-only" in the
> LICENSE metadata so that ebuild authors are less likely to confuse
> GPL-2 vs GPL-2+.

I don't see how renaming could possibly help with that.

>> Plus, it would result in paradoxical entries like "|| ( GPL-2-only
>> GPL-3-only )" for a package that can be distributed under GPL
>> versions 2 or 3 but no later version.

> That paradoxical entry is pretty clear to me.

Not the same thing. "GPL-2-only+" might be clear as well, which doesn't
imply that it isn't paradoxical.

> It's not a one-time audit. Michał has a history of fixing things in
> ways that does not allow the issue to return. I imagine that's what
> he's doing here, and it would not surprise me at all if something
> could be wired into CI to help ensure this.

If it's not a one time audit, it implies that we will permanently have
three variants. This would be a lot of effort, for a tiny gain. After
all, there is absolutely no difference in ACCEPT_LICENSE filtering
between GPL-2 and GPL-2+.

> Trivial concern solved with a news item.

As I've said before, if the intent is to do a tree-wide audit, then
this should be done in a way that has no impact on users. For example,
by adding a comment, instead of changing the LICENSE variable.

Ulrich