[gentoo-dev] Re: GPL-2 vs GPL-2+
Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten wrote: What I propose is to copy licenses/GPL-2 to license/GPL-2+ and adding the following notes at the start of the two files: GPL-2: Note: this license states that the software is licensed under GNU General Public License version 2, and you might not be able to consider it licensed under any later version. GPL-2+: Note: this license explicitly allows licensing under GNU General Public License version 2 or, at your option, any later version. Was there ever a consensus on this? I think it's an important issue and am willing to help with an audit. -- by design, by neglect dirtyepic gentoo orgfor a fact or just for effect 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GPL-2 vs GPL-2+
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 22:54, Steve Long wrote: Paul de Vrieze wrote: I know that I'm a bit late on this, but to me the version 2 or later is a license by itself. Let's call it GPL-RENEW and let the file have contents like: This package is licensed with the version x or later clause for the GPL. The LICENSE would then be: LICENSE=GPL-2 GPL-RENEW The advantage being that the renew clause is version independent, we don't lose information, don't have to mutilate licenses (by adding text). If desired it could even be used as LICENSE=|| (GPL-2 GPL-3) GPL-RENEW That last bit's excessive IMO. It seems to add complexity- does it mean you can have either of the GPL2 or 3 plus any later from that version? Why not just cover that with your first example, which I like a lot- it spells out the later clause, and as you say, is version-independent. So GPL-3 GPL-RENEW could be specified, as well as simple GPL-2, or GPL-2 GPL-RENEW. (Just spelling it out, sorry.) I'm thinking about your example and I can see how it covers a user who *wants* to use GPL-3 (eg for their own code) but I still think that comes under GPL-2 GPL-RENEW as it's clearly allowed. My idea for the second way is basically to make the life of tools easier. It would make explicit that someone accepting GPL-3, but not GPL-2 would be able to accept a GPL-2 and later license. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgpXrFy0X15tg.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: GPL-2 vs GPL-2+
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: Comments, ideas, proposals? currently we have all those under GPL-2. Now when GPL-3 becomes available people have the option to use GPL-3. However that will still allow people to use GPL-2 if their patents, etc need it. SO it is not much difference. The big difference that actually matters is when applications start to get distributed only for the GPL-3 and actually then I would also like to see the LICENSE change to GPL-3. I see little benifit in having GPL-2+ but a lot of potential confusion and a lot of work for developers to check all pkges. - Stefan -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
