>>>>> 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
