Mounir Lamouri wrote:
>> However I do notice that "GPL-2+" could make things easier.
>> Why not introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ or so, instead?
>> That would be transparent and use existing means.
> I don't understand where the black magic is.

It would be in the implementation and in the non-transparency.
How can a user understabnd that "GPL-2+" refers to a group of license
files but "GPL-2" refers to a single file?  He may guess but it's not
obvious, especially if it hasn#t been like that in the past, which is
the case.

> However, a
> group will not add the information in the ebuild. In other words, I will
> have GPL-2 and GPL-3 with GPL-2+ in ACCEPT_LICENSE but I will not have
> GPL-2+ packages if i set only GPL-3 in ACCEPT_LICENSE.

I propose support for license groups in ebuilds then, I guess.


Reply via email to