On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:00:51 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 04 January 2007 11:42, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > > 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. > > Except that a GPL-RENEW tag would be transparent over newer GPL > releases too. Upstreams will likely release under gpl-3 and newer. My > solution would handle it transparently. So you're suggesting "GPL-2 GPL-RENEW" would mean "GPL-2 or later", and "GPL-3 GPL-RENEW" would mean "GPL-3 or later"? Ugh. That'd be a mess for portage to parse. A better way of doing what I think you're suggesting, would be to define (say) the suffix '+' to mean 'or later' (with defined semantics; perhaps such that 'later' means substring that matches regex '-[^-]+\+$' be lexicographically greater in the C locale). However that means adding such management to portage. I still think license groups in LICENSE would be the ideal solution (requires changes to portage), but the most practical solution for now is simply to create GPL-2+ as Diego suggested. -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
