On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 03:13:02PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote: > On Samstag, 12. Mai 2007, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 02:27:20PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote: > > > No. LICENSE="GPL-2 some-exception" suffices. > > > > No, that means something completely different. It means that you should > > install the software only if you find both the GPL-2 and the exception > > acceptable, rather than if you find the combination of the GPL-2 with > > the exception acceptable. > > And that's why it's not different. Such exceptions usually don't stand for > themselves, but relate to the license they're bound to. Can be matter of the > wording, though.
Do you need to accept the unmodified GPL-2 for software licensed under the GPL-2 plus exception? No? Then GPL-2 does not belong in LICENSE, unless in a || group. > I consider it quite stupid adding extra licenses for such exceptions. A generic license could be used, which points to the packages for the exact license. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
