On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 12:13 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, Matt Turner wrote:
>
> > Just responding because the absurdity of this angers me, to be honest.
> > See if you notice anything funny about the URL:
>
> > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.h
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, Matt Turner wrote:
> Just responding because the absurdity of this angers me, to be honest.
> See if you notice anything funny about the URL:
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html
What do you mean? Should we localise it, because translations i
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 4:46 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Sep 2019, Matt Turner wrote:
>
> > An idea to consider: use SPDX license identifiers (see
> > https://spdx.org/licenses/)
>
> > For GPL 2 they are "GPL-2.0-only" and "GPL-2.0-or-later"
>
> Yeah, they have a history of using
> On Sep 21, 2019, at 12:09 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> TL;DR: I'd like to replace 'GPL-2' with 'GPL-2-only' etc., having
> the former trigger QA warning asking the dev to double-check if it's
> 'GPL-2-only' or 'GPL-2+'.
>
>
> GNU Licenses currently don't carry an upgrade clause -- i
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 4:46 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Sep 2019, Matt Turner wrote:
>
> > An idea to consider: use SPDX license identifiers (see
> > https://spdx.org/licenses/)
>
> > For GPL 2 they are "GPL-2.0-only" and "GPL-2.0-or-later"
>
> Yeah, they have a history of using
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2019, Matt Turner wrote:
> An idea to consider: use SPDX license identifiers (see
> https://spdx.org/licenses/)
> For GPL 2 they are "GPL-2.0-only" and "GPL-2.0-or-later"
Yeah, they have a history of using silly names. What does 2.0 mean?
There is no such version of the GPL,
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 9:57 AM Matt Turner wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 9:09 AM Michał Górny wrote:
> > TL;DR: I'd like to replace 'GPL-2' with 'GPL-2-only' etc., having
> > the former trigger QA warning asking the dev to double-check if it's
> > 'GPL-2-only' or 'GPL-2+'.
>
> I think that'
On 9/21/19 3:59 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Honestly, do you believe having the choice of 'GPL-2' and 'GPL-2-only'
> people would choose the latter without actually checking the difference?
I've seen twenty people do ten stupider things in the last five minutes.
On Sat, 2019-09-21 at 15:56 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 9/21/19 12:09 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > TL;DR: I'd like to replace 'GPL-2' with 'GPL-2-only' etc., having
> > the former trigger QA warning asking the dev to double-check if it's
> > 'GPL-2-only' or 'GPL-2+'.
> >
>
> T
On 9/21/19 12:09 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> TL;DR: I'd like to replace 'GPL-2' with 'GPL-2-only' etc., having
> the former trigger QA warning asking the dev to double-check if it's
> 'GPL-2-only' or 'GPL-2+'.
>
This works only until people start putting
LICENSE="GPL-2-only"
for things
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 9:09 AM Michał Górny wrote:
> TL;DR: I'd like to replace 'GPL-2' with 'GPL-2-only' etc., having
> the former trigger QA warning asking the dev to double-check if it's
> 'GPL-2-only' or 'GPL-2+'.
I think that's a good idea.
Hi,
TL;DR: I'd like to replace 'GPL-2' with 'GPL-2-only' etc., having
the former trigger QA warning asking the dev to double-check if it's
'GPL-2-only' or 'GPL-2+'.
GNU Licenses currently don't carry an upgrade clause -- instead, authors
are expected to decide whether they permit upgrade to newe
12 matches
Mail list logo
