On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:31:04 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 22 December 2006 22:53, Yuri Vasilevski wrote: > > While for the ones that support v2 or later (this is actually a > > special case of multiple licensing) we do: > > > > LICENSE="GPL-2 GPL-3" > > > > when it becomes available? > There is one problem at least for this: to apply this method you'd > have to change _all_ the ebuilds in the tree referring to GPL-2 or > later when GPL-3 is published, while with GPL-2+ we can start > gradually now. Yes, this will require us to update ebuils once in like 5 (or 15?) years to catch with FSF. But at the benefit of having less confusion for users about "What the heck is a GPL-2+?" for at last the same period of time. GPL-2 is not a licence nor it is not a standard notation for that way of having multilicencing. So users will have to check what's the meaning of that + at the end of GPL-2+, so I think it'll create much more confusion than the work of updating packages with each new version of GPL. Also there could be a case that softer v3 is out, FSF will rethink and come up with something acceptable to Linus (and other people that refuse to migrate), as (as far as I can understand) GPL-3 will not be compatible with GPL-2. So there could be the case of having a package licenced under GPL-2, GPL-2.1 or later. (This is just an example, I actually have no idea whatever this will be the case of having a softer GPL-3.x.) > Also it would be more useful for users to know what can be licensed > in 2+ and what requires 2 strictly. This info can be easily and automatically extracted from LICENSE variable by applying some boolean logic ;-) Yuri. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
