On 2016-4-4 01:46 , Clemens Lang wrote:
Hi Josh,
On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 01:06:50AM +1000, Joshua Root wrote:
MPL 2.0 is GPL compatible only by way of an optional clause that
allows relicensing under the GPL. Some software is under MPL-2 but has
an "Incompatible With Secondary Licenses" notice. If a port uses the
version of MPL-2 that does allow the relicensing then its license
should be listed as {MPL-2 LGPL-2.1+}. (You could list GPL-2+ and
AGPL-3+ in there too but it makes no practical difference.)
I'm aware of that. Still, it's probably the most common case that this
optional clause applies, and I'd argue it should be the default for this
reason -- especially because there is no documentation (that I could
find) that explains that you have to explicitly list (L)GPL.
Well, documentation can be written. :)
I think we should add an additional MPL-2-NoRelicensing (or "MPL-2
GPLConflict") license to denote the few ports that explicitly do not
have the exception.
Making the dual licensing explicit seems less confusing to me than
calling the same license two different names.
- Josh
_______________________________________________
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
