On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:18:51 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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." This is effectively what Diego was proposing with the 'GPL-2+' name. > 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" This isn't necessary - by creating the 'GPL-2+' license name, the only thing that's not fully correct as things stand is that packages that can be accepted with GPL-2 or later won't be accepted if the user has just GPL-3 in ACCEPT_LICENSES. Over time this can be fixed, by replacing "GPL-2" with "GPL-2+" in the LICENSE variable for the relevant packages. The the meaning of each license name would be strictly: GPL-2 : Only licensed under GPL v2 GPL-3 : Only licensed under GPL v3 GPL-2+ : Licensed under GPL v2 or later Which gives everyone what they need; those wanting GPL-2 or later would have ACCEPT_LICENSES="GPL-2 GPL-3 GPL-2+". For me, the only other sane alternative would be to use license groups (assuming license groups can be specified in the LICENSE variable). I don't recall the status of license groups in portage. -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
