>>>>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, Michał Górny wrote: > 1. introducing additional *-only licenses that explicitly indicate > that a newer version is not allowed, e.g. GPL-2-only, LGPL-3-only etc.
I don't like this at all, because LICENSE="GPL-2" means exactly the above, namely GPL version 2, no later version. Therefore, "GPL-2-only" would be completely redundant to it. What we could do (and what already exists in several ebuilds) is to add a *comment* to the LICENSE line, like "# GPL-2 only". This could be required for every new ebuild. > 2. annotating the unsuffixed licenses with a warning that they may > mean either x-only or x+ due to frequent mistake. I don't think that's a good idea either. Also we're not allowed to change the license documents: "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." > 3. make repoman warn whenever non-specific variant is used, telling > developers to verify whether it's x-only or x+. Repoman could check for a comment in the LICENSE line as well, I guess? > 4. start migrating packages to x-only or x+ appropriately. See above. We could instead migrate ebuilds with "GPL-2" to either: LICENSE="GPL-2+" or: LICENSE="GPL-2" # GPL-2 only Optionally, the comment can be removed once all ebuilds have been converted. > 5. eventually, remove the non-specific licenses and make repoman error > out with clear explanation. Ulrich
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
