Re: [gentoo-project] call for agenda items -- council meeting 2020-02-09

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1635 bytes --]

On Mon, 2020-01-27 at 16:53 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> two weeks from yesterday, on 2020-02-09, the Gentoo council will meet at
> 19:00 utc in the #gentoo-council channel on freenode.
> 
> Please reply to this message with any items you would like us to discuss
> or vote on.
> 

ulm has started the discussion on licensing ebuilds as GPL-2+ (i.e.
permitting the users to choose a future GPL version, and developers to
create derivative work licensed using newer GPL terms) [1].

I'd like to request the Council to vote on the following aspects of that
separately:

1. Can developers individually decide to license their ebuilds as GPL-2+ 
rather than 'GPL-2 only' (provided that they fulfill relicensing
requirements)?

2. Should developers be encouraged to use GPL-2+ for new ebuilds
(whenever possible)?

3. Should we start collecting permissions from contributors to relicense
their GPL-2 work as GPL-2+?  This will be helpful both to 1. and 2.


Context:

Recently pkgcheck was extended to check copyright notices on eclasses. 
This is based on a similar check for ebuilds, which in turn is based
on check in repoman.  It explicitly requires 'GPL-2 only' license.

This new check discovered [2] that ant-tasks.eclass is using GPL-2+
header, and as such flagged it as incorrect.  This raises the question
on whether we should allow this license, or restrict ant-tasks.eclass
to 'GPL-2 only'.


[1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/89edd9093ecb797fbf9ecb7aab9ef1e2
[2] https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/output.html#global

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]