Yuri Vasilevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on  Wed,
27 Aug 2008 09:34:27 -0500:

> As Another example, the user might statically link bits of the exact
> same library against a GPL-2 (not a GPL-2 or latter) program, just
> because he is misinformed by portage that the program is GPL-2 and then
> he gets into a legal problem.

The original question didn't specify where the license change occurred, 
upstream, or whether upstream stayed the same, and the Gentoo change was 
simply correcting an earlier mistake.

If the change occurred upstream, then the version of the code released as 
GPLv2 remains released at that, regardless of upstream changes; once 
released as GPLv2, that can't be revoked (tho GPLv3 or another license 
could be added), and there's no problem in this case because we are 
talking that same upstream version according to the question.  This is 
how I read the original question, an upstream change.

However, if we're correcting a Gentoo mistake on code that was never 
licensed as we said it was, then a bump should be mandatory, as will be 
removal of the previously licensed revision ASAP, because that revision 
was shipped under the wrong license, and the faster that's corrected and 
we're no longer violating the law, the better.

In this latter case, I'd argue that the offending revision must be 
removed immediately, even if the new revision can't be stabilized fast 
enough and a downgrade or even missing dependency is forced.  We had no 
right to be shipping the code licensed as it was, and if we end up 
breaking stuff by removing what wasn't ours to ship in the first place, 
so be it.

However, if as stated in the original question, the only difference in 
the build is the license, then as someone else suggested, I believe a 
straight to stable policy should apply.  If it does, then there won't be 
any breakage since the new revision will be stabilized in in place of and 
at removal of the old.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman


Reply via email to