On Thursday 26 August 2010 15:38:43 Philipp Überbacher wrote: > Excerpts from Ronald van Haren's message of 2010-08-26 20:10:00 +0200: > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Xyne <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Philipp Überbacher wrote: > > >> It would be nice to distinguish between GPLvN only and GPLvN or later > > >> for any N. The question is which way is optimal. > > > > > > GPL2 > > > GPL2-only > > > GPL3 > > > GPL3-only > > > etc > > > > > > Wouldn't that both be clear and avoid sweeping changes as most things > > > are licensed under the standard "this version or later" license? > > > > > > > > clear yes, avoid sweeping changes no. > > > > > > > > most packages are currently gpl2 or later, hence called 'GPL'. These > > need to be changes to GPL2. packages which currently are GPL2 need to > > be converted to GPL2-only. > > You can of course keep both GPL2 and GPL for gpl2 or later for now. > > > > > > > > Ronald > > I also wonder about the GPLv1/any case. It's nothing that should be used > anymore, but technically all the perl stuff would need 'GPLv1 or later' > which is the same as 'GPL any'.
Just in case: if a package is licensed under "GPLvX and later" and Arch says it's GPLvY (with Y >= X) and doesn't say anything about "or later", that's not a problem, for Arch, really, it will be using one of the allowed licenses in any case. It may be a problem if it ends combining it with another program which requires one of the "later" GPLs, though.
