Re: [gentoo-dev] License groups in ebuilds
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
AFAICS, we would need 9 additional license files, namely GPL-{1,2,3}+,
LGPL-{2,2.1,3}+, and FDL-{1.1,1.2,1.3}+.
Coming back to this, because the council has now rejected license
groups for EAPI 5. I would then create above-mentioned files in the
licenses dir.
Committed and added to appropriate license groups.
Concerning transition: This issue isn't the most pressing of our
problems, so IMHO transition should be done gradually, whenever an
ebuild is touched for another reason. We can evaluate things again in
a year from now.
If you check the license of a package and find that e.g. GPL-2
(without the plus sign) is correct, then it would be useful to add a
comment GPL-2 only to the ebuild. This is to avoid checking packages
twice.
Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] License groups in ebuilds
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
The GPL-2+ file workaround doesn't sound to bad.
Call be picky, but we could actually use a GPL-3+ file, too.
With that we could distinguish exactly GPL 3 and GPL 3 or later
properly on our end, no matter if GPL 4 ever comes or not.
Yes, that was the idea. Otherwise we would have to start over again
whenever a GPL-4 appears.
AFAICS, we would need 9 additional license files, namely GPL-{1,2,3}+,
LGPL-{2,2.1,3}+, and FDL-{1.1,1.2,1.3}+.
Coming back to this, because the council has now rejected license
groups for EAPI 5. I would then create above-mentioned files in the
licenses dir.
Is it sufficient to include a reference to GPL-2 etc. like this:
╓[ GPL-2+ ]
║ GNU General Public License version 2, or any later version.
║ See GPL-2 or GPL-3 for the full text of these licenses.
╙
Or should the full license text of GPL-2 be repeated in the GPL-2+
file?
Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] License groups in ebuilds
On 05/10/2012 11:39 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: Are there any other licenses besides *GPL and FDL that would require such a file? What do you think? The GPL-2+ file workaround doesn't sound to bad. Call be picky, but we could actually use a GPL-3+ file, too. With that we could distinguish exactly GPL 3 and GPL 3 or later properly on our end, no matter if GPL 4 ever comes or not. Best, Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] License groups in ebuilds
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
On 05/10/2012 11:39 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
Are there any other licenses besides *GPL and FDL that would
require such a file?
What do you think?
The GPL-2+ file workaround doesn't sound to bad.
Call be picky, but we could actually use a GPL-3+ file, too.
With that we could distinguish exactly GPL 3 and GPL 3 or later
properly on our end, no matter if GPL 4 ever comes or not.
Yes, that was the idea. Otherwise we would have to start over again
whenever a GPL-4 appears.
AFAICS, we would need 9 additional license files, namely GPL-{1,2,3}+,
LGPL-{2,2.1,3}+, and FDL-{1.1,1.2,1.3}+.
Ulrich
[gentoo-dev] License groups in ebuilds
Long standing problem: Some of our most used license tags like GPL-2 are ambiguous, denoting either GPL-2 only or GPL-2 or later. One solution would be license groups in ebuilds, which could be added to EAPI 5 [1]. Disadvantage would be that they cannot be used in previous EAPIs. Alternatively, we could create separate license files like GPL-2+, as suggested in [2], especially since the plus versions now have their own entry in the SPDX license list [3]. Are there any other licenses besides *GPL and FDL that would require such a file? What do you think? Ulrich [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=287192 [2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_6c004fd342c57062d71455109fa52ac0.xml [3] http://www.spdx.org/licenses/
Re: [gentoo-dev] License groups in ebuilds
On 10 May 2012 21:39, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: . Are there any other licenses besides *GPL and FDL that would require such a file? I'd welcome groups so we can have a Perl_5 group. The lions share of modules published on CPAN are licensed Under the same license as Perl 5 Itself, which implies || ( GPL-2 Artistic-1 ) And that boilerplate stanza is thus in many of the Perl Modules ebuilds. -- Kent perl -e print substr( \edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\, \$_ * 3, 3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 ); http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz
