I'm a bit worried if we should really go down that path. Not because I have issues with GPL2+ (I'm usually happy with everything that makes licensing more flexible), but because I'm worried we're creating a legal minefield.
Think about this: You may ask me if you can relicense all the ebuilds I've ever written as GPL2+. I'll say yes. Though ask me if you can relicense all the ebuilds I've ever committed? Well... They came from bug reports, overlays, heavily edited by other people, and I have no way of tracking that. I added them under the implicit assumption that someone who has submitted such an ebuild to bugzilla or to an overlay with the gentoo/gpl2 copyright line in it would implicitly agree that they would be redistributed under those conditions. IANAL, but I think that's a fair assumption. But do all these people that created or contributed to the ebuilds I ever committed agree to a GPL2+-relicensing? No idea, probably not. Is their work relevant enough to have a license at all? IANAL. *If* Gentoo decides to go this relicensing way I'd recommend to only do that if it's coordinated with organizations that have deep legal knowledge of these issues (e.g. like software freedom conservancy) and if some lawyers that know this stuff well approve the plan. -- Hanno Böck https://hboeck.de/
pgpoBtmFxekQw.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
