Mounir Lamouri wrote: >> However I do notice that "GPL-2+" could make things easier. >> Why not introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ or so, instead? >> That would be transparent and use existing means. >> > I don't understand where the black magic is.
It would be in the implementation and in the non-transparency. How can a user understabnd that "GPL-2+" refers to a group of license files but "GPL-2" refers to a single file? He may guess but it's not obvious, especially if it hasn#t been like that in the past, which is the case. > However, a > group will not add the information in the ebuild. In other words, I will > have GPL-2 and GPL-3 with GPL-2+ in ACCEPT_LICENSE but I will not have > GPL-2+ packages if i set only GPL-3 in ACCEPT_LICENSE. I propose support for license groups in ebuilds then, I guess. Sebastian
