On Sun, 2018-08-26 at 13:09 +0200, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > On 26/08/2018 12:53, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > > The common issue here is that upstream COPYING files really do only > > talk about one of the versions. And then you get to validate or source > > files to be sure that they do have a "or later" clause in them. And > > then on each bump you ideally should validate it again, etc, that no > > sources without "or later" allowance are in there... > > Yup, precise tracking of license metadata can be a pain. > > I'm not really sure if that level of it is worth for us as a distro. For > _importing_ other project's source code directly into one's project > precise license compatibility matters a lot. That's not the scenario > we're in. I see LICENSES as mostly a mechanism for end users to accept > or reject EULAs etc, and I'm curious what are other common scenarios. > > Michał, could you elaborate on why not distinguishing more precisely > between these GPL variants in LICENSES is a _problem_ ? I can certainly > see the information is not always accurate, but it's not obvious to me > how severe is the downside, what are the consequences in practice. >
I'm not aware of any major implications. However, I think that if we provide for the distinction, the distinction should be used correctly. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
